Case: Balai Chandra Mondal Vs. Indurekha Debi &amp; Others

1. This appeal by certificate is from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta passed in favour of theIndurekha Debi (hereinafter referred to as Indurekha) after reversing a judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Zillah Nadia who had dismissed thesuit against theThe short facts of the case are as follows. One Umesh Chandra Banerjee who was theent held a Mokarari Mourashi Jama recorded in Khatian No. 3 of Mouza Narsinghapur and Khatian No. 50 of Mouza Gayespur also known as Mathurapur. The Jama was sold in execution of a rent decree in November 1939 and was purchased by Indurekha in the Benami of Smarajit Kumar Bhattacharyya (hereinafter referred to simply as Smarajit). Some time in October 1943, Smarajit executed in favour of Indurekha, a deed of voluntary sale of the jama. Two years before this sale, in August 1941, an amalnama or a deed of settlement was executed by one Anadi Charan Chakrabarti creating a raiyati interest in favour of the present appellant over 106 bighas of land at an annual rent of Rs.as. The appellant claims that Anadi executed the deed of settlement as the authorised manager of Indurekha. Indurekhas case is, however, that neither she nor Smarajit who was herbefore had on any occasion permitted their manager to make a settlement and that the settlement in favour of the appellant was fraudulently created by one Annada Prasad De and Anadi Charan Chakrabarti acting in collusion with the appellant. Indurekha filed a suit on 3 August, 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Krishnagar asking for a declaration that the fictitious settlement created in favour of the appellant was void and also asking for a decree for possession of the suit property and mesne profits. The appellant contested the suit and in the written statement denied the title of Indurekha to the land in dispute.

Reasoning: It is a thoroughlyprinciple that where the transferor himself has no title to the property he must at least have the authority to transfer it. Under Sec. 7 of the Transfer of Property Act only a person authorised to dispose of transferable property not his own is competent to transfer it either wholly or in part. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that the unregistered deed of Amalnama on which the appellant bases his title describes Anadi as the manager of Smarajit and that one of the witnesses to the document was Annada Prasad De who has been described in the same deed as the authorised gomasta on behalf of Smarajit. It was argued that on the basis of the oral evidence and also having regard to the deed of Amalnama as well as the registered Kobala of 18 October, 1943 by which Smarajit transferrred the land to Indurekha, the inference is irresistible that Anadi must have been authorised to grant the Amalnama. We have gone through both the deed of Amalnama as well as the registered Kobala but we find no warrant for which an inference. There is merely a statement in the registered Kobala that Anadi was a local agent of Indurekhas husband and that he was instrumental in obtaining possession of the property through Court. We do not see how this connotes any authority to transfer or dispose of property on behalf of Indurekha. We have also gone through the oral evidence of the appellant carefully. Even he does not say anywhere that Anadi had the authority to dispose of property. He merely harps on the statement that Anadi was a manager of Smarajit. Indeed the evidence of the appellant himself shows that neither Smarajit nor Indurekha figured in any manner in the transaction leading to the settlement of the land with the appellant. The appellant admits that he had never seen any writing by Smarajit appointing Anadi as a Manager. Though he knew Smarajit he never had any discussion with him. He further admits that he did not go either to Indurekha for settlement or to Smarajit on any occasion whatsoever. Even so far as Annada is concerned the appellant admits that he had not seen any appointment letter from Anadi in favour of Annada. In this connection it should be mentioned that Indurekhas husband Panchu Gopal who according to the plaintiff looked after her property has stated clearly that Anadi was never a manager of his wifes estate and that he had never been entrusted with the work of "settling tenants, creating jamas, realising rents" in the mahal. Panchu Gopal also denies that Anadi was at any time Smarajits manager. As for Annada, Panchu Gopal admits that Annada used to work as a Naib before the land in question was bought by Smarajit as his wifes benamidar but he states clearly that no authority was given to Annada at any time to settle or induct tenants in the mahal. He further says that even in the Dakhilas or rent receipts which used to be issued on behalf of his wife, there is a clear mention that the person who received the rents had no authority to settle jamas. Panchu Gopal further stated that the appellant had not on any occasion approached him for settlement of the land. In view of all this we find it impossible to accept the appellants contention that Anadi had any authority to settle the land with him.It was urged on behalf of the appellant that there are certain rent receipts in evidence which indicate that the appellant had paid rents to Indurekha. It was sought to be contended that since Indurekha had accepted rents she should be estopped from denying the appellants title.We cannot persuade ourselves to accept this contention either. There is no evidence to show that the rents were collected from the appellant with the knowledge and consent of Indurekha. It has been suggested on her behalf that some dishonest gomastas had collected rents from the appellant and that these gomastas had neither renders accounts nor handed over these rents to her. It is significant that the rent receipts in question were never put to either Indurekha or her husband at the time of trial. No question of estoppel therefore arises and we reject the appellants contention based on estoppel.