High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Pt.Devi Prasad v. Lt.Col.Ghamndi Singh - SECOND APPEAL No. - 414 of 1978  RD-AH 16082 (27 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Second Appeal No. 414 of 1978
Pt. Devi Prasad Sharma Vs. Lt. Col. Ghamandi Singh
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
The defendant has filed this Second Appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Mathura by which the Civil Appeal, that had been filed by the plaintiff, was allowed and the suit was decreed.
The Original Suit had been filed for rendition of accounts. It was stated that the plaintiff was the owner of the property known as 'Chhattri Ballabhgarh' situated at Bengali Ghat, Mathura and he had appointed the defendant as his Karinda on 29.9.1946 at Rs. 20/- per month for realisation of the rent of the property from the tenants. The defendant realised the rent up to 18.9.1971 on his behalf but subsequently in collusion with with his sister Rani Nihal Kaur and other tenants got a Trust Deed executed of the property in favour of Thakur Radhey Shyam and when the plaintiff learnt about this fact, he terminated the services of the defendant. The defendant was asked to render accounts for the past three years but he did not do so. The suit was, accordingly, filed.
A written-statement was filed by the defendant. It was stated that soon after his appointment as Karinda, he was asked by the plaintiff to handover the realised rent to his sister Rani Nihal Kaur and, therefore, whatever rent was realised was given to his sister and the account was also rendered to her. It was, therefore, stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to any rendition of accounts.
The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property of which the rent was realised by the defendant and that the defendant had been appointed as the Karinda to realise the rent for and on behalf of the plaintiff's sister to whom the rent had been paid and to whom the accounts were also rendered.
The Lower Appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the owner of the property and the defendant had been appointed as the Karinda to collect the rent. In coming to this conclusion, the Lower Appellate Court placed reliance upon the admission made by the defendant in paragraph 1 of the written-statement. The plaintiff in paragraph 1 of the plaint categorically stated that he had appointed the defendant as the Karinda on 29.9.1946 to collect rent of his property at Rs. 20/- per month. The defendant admitted this statement made in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The Lower Appellate Court also placed reliance upon the letter dated 25.9.1971 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff (Ext. 6) wherein he admitted ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the property in dispute. The Court also placed reliance upon the oral statement made by the defendant that the rent was realised by issuing printed receipts in the name of the plaintiff as owner of the property. The Lower Appellate Court, therefore, concluded that the plaintiff was the owner of the property. The Lower Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the defendant had been appointed as the Karinda in the year 1946 in view of the admission made by the defendant. The defendant also admitted in his statement that he had been appointed as the Karinda by the plaintiff on 29.9.1946 and the appointment letter was with him which he could file. The Lower Appellate Court has also explained (Ext. A-5) on which reliance was placed by the Trial Court that the plaintiff only requested the defendant to pay rent to his sister but that would not mean that the accounts were not to be rendered to the plaintiff. The Lower Appellate Court has disbelieved the statement of the sister as dispute had arisen between her and her brother and the relations also become strained. The Lower Appellate Court, therefore, decreed the suit as the defendant was bound to render accounts to the plaintiff.
Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had placed reliance upon the letter dated 7.3.1972 (Ext. A-5) that had been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant but the Lower Appellate Court has completely ignored this letter. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. A perusal of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court clearly shows that the said document had been considered and explained. The Lower Appellate Court concluded that this document does not mean that the defendant was not to render accounts to the plaintiff.
In my opinion, the Lower Appellate Court has drawn the conclusion that the plaintiff was the owner of the property and the defendant had been appointed as the Karinda to collect the rent on the basis of the admission made by the defendant in the written-statement and the oral statement and such a conclusion has also been drawn from the documentary evidence. The findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse.
The Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.