Judgement

Appeal (No. 99 of 1920) from a judgment and decree (December 16, 1918) of the High Court, affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of twenty-four Parganas.

The suit was brought by the Official Receiver, as receiver of certain property appointed by a decree of the High Court dated August 2, 1912, to recover from the respondents khas possession of a garden. The respondents by their defence relied on a mukarari lease of the garden to them dated March 14, 1910, and purporting to be granted by “Protap Chandra Ghosha, by his attorney Bhupendra Sri Ghosha." The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding that Bhupendra who executed the lease had authority from Protap Chandra Ghosha to do so.

The High Court affirmed the decision. The learned judges (Chitty and Panton JJ.) agreed with the findings of the trial judge that no question of legal necessity arose, and that the price was adequate. In their view Protap Chandra, having regard to the decree of August 2, 1912, was not a trustee of the property but in the position of a karta or manager of secular property, and that in that capacity he could empower Bhupendra t