1940 (11) TMI 32 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legal right to the britti.
2. Charge upon the Kasimbazar Raj Estate.
3. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence.
4. Interpretation of hearsay evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
5. Personal obligation of the Maharajah.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legal right to the britti:
The plaintiffs, a distinguished family of Brahmin priests, claimed a declaration of entitlement to a britti of Rs. 4000, payable by half-yearly installments, for the worship of two deities established by Krishna Kanta Nandy. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs never had a legal right to the britti. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, establishing that Krishna Kanta Nandy made a permanent grant of britti. However, the appellate court found no sufficient evidence to support the claim of a permanent grant or the establishment of the deities by Krishna Kanta Nandy.

2. Charge upon the Kasimbazar Raj Estate:
The plaintiffs claimed that the britti was charged upon the Kasimbazar Raj Estate. Both the trial court and the High Court concurred in this finding. However, the Privy Council found no evidence to support the creation of any charge upon the estate. The evidence showed continuous payment of the britti from the time of Krishna Kanta Nandy, but no document was produced to evidence the grant or charge, casting doubt on the claim.

3. Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence:
The Privy Council found that both lower courts erred in admitting hearsay evidence as valid. The admissible evidence did not justify the finding of a permanent grant or a charge. The continuous payment of britti was seen as a tradition rather than a legal obligation. The letter from Maharajah Manindra Chandra Nandy to the estate manager was interpreted as an attempt to limit personal liabilities rather than proof of a legal charge.

4. Interpretation of hearsay evidence under the Indian Evidence Act:
The High Court relied on hearsay evidence regarding the family tradition of the britti and the establishment of the deities. The Privy Council emphasized that hearsay evidence is inadmissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court criticized the High Court's erroneous statement that the principle of exclusion should not be applied if it hinders the ascertainment of truth. The Privy Council clarified that the rules of evidence are designed to eliminate doubtful evidence and must be strictly followed.

5. Personal obligation of the Maharajah:
The Privy Council noted that Maharajah Manindra Chandra Nandy regarded the payment of the britti as a personal obligation. While the Court of Wards might be justified in paying the arrears up to the time of his death, this was not a matter for decree in the present suit.

Conclusion:
The Privy Council allowed the appeal, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs failed to establish a permanent grant or a charge upon the Kasimbazar Raj Estate. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs in the Indian Courts and of the appeal.