AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das. J.
The only question raised in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has established the pedigree on, which he relies. The plaintiff has examined himself in support of his case and also an old Purohit of the family 75 years of age. It is quite true that the plaintiff is not a very trustworthy person; and, if his evidence had not received corroboration, I would hesitate to accept it. But his evidence has received very strong corroboration from the evidence of the old Purohit of the family. The learned Subordinate Judge has accepted that evidence and I see no reason whatever to differ from him on this point. The appellants are after all the managers of the estate of the lunatic who is now dead. This case decides no issue as between the plaintiff and the defendants in their personal capacity. In my opinion the plaintiff has established his title to the property as against the defendants, who are the managers of the estate of the lunatic. I would accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.
The office reports that there is a deficiency of Court-fee to the extent Rs. 385 on the plaint filed by the respondents in the Court below. I am of opinion that the Court-fee of Rs. 10 was sufficient. The position is this. The property was in the custody of the Court and all that the plaintiff had to do was to establish his title to the property. Therefore, it was necessary for him to file a suit for declaration of his title to the property, butt not for recovery of possession. In my opinion, the principle of the decision in Administrator-General of Bengal v. Bhagaban Chandra Roy Chowdhury 15 CWN 758, applies to this case.
Kulwant Sahay, J.
I agree.