U. HASAIA POHSHNA AND ANOTHER Vs. U. KILL DHUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, District Council Court, Jowai, in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1970. The facts of the plaintiffs case, material for the purpose of this appeal, are as follows: -

(2.) THERE is a Durbar of three villages, namely, Padu Bah. Padu Mawsku and Mowngap. On 24 -10 -1964. the defendants, who are father and daughter, were elected treasurers of the Durbar for a term of three years commencing from 24 -10 -1964, aforesaid. On the said date, the fund of the Durbar amounting to Rs. 3,000/ - was deposited with the defendants. After the terms of the treasurers was over, on 29 -1 -1968, the aforesaid Durbar was convened for electing new office bearers and the defendants also had been asked to attend the meeting with the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,000/ - On 29 -1 -1968, U Bok Pohshna and Ka Mon Sumer Pohshna were elected as new treasurers of the said Durbar. The Durbar then demanded of the defendants the amount of Rs. 3.000/ - so that it could be deposited with the new treasurers. Defendant No. 1, who was present in that meeting, refused to pay the amount and referred the Durbar to the Court for the purpose. The Durbar then on that very day decided to file a case against the defendants and authorised the plaintiffs, who are respectively the Secretary and the President of the Durbar, to file a suit against the defendants for the recovery of the amount.

(3.) THE defendants have filed a joint written statement. Their case is that the Durbar was really held on 4 -1 -1968 and in that Durbar, the defendants were re -elected treasurers. The Durbar held on 29 -1 -1968 "was the creation of the plaintiffs with their few interested friends". Their case is that they still continue to be the treasurers and are entitled to retain the amount. The plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. The defendants did not deny that the amount of Rs. 3,000/ - belonging to the Durbar had been deposited with them and that they are liable to pay that amount to the Durbar; but their contention is that they are entitled to retain it as they were re -elected treasurers.