9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (11) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atively humble origin who by his abilities attracted the attention of Warren Hastings, became his Diwan, and died in the year 1778, proprietor of large possessions in about twelve different districts and in Calcutta. After his death, his son Loknath appears to have been given the title of Maharajah of Kasimbazar by Warren Hastings, and the property to which he and his descendants have succeeded is known as the Kasimbazar Raj Estate. The case of the plaintiffs is that Krishna Kanta Nandy established two deities Radhagovinda and Lakshminarayan at Shrikhanda, the plaintiffs' home, and granted the plaintiffs a britti of ₹ 4000 for the worship of the two deities: and at the same time charged his Raj estate with the payment of the britti. The plaintiffs and their successors, it is said, became the gurus of Krishna Kanta Nandy and his family and its successors: they have conducted the worship and service of the deities ever since. 2. The learned Assistant District Judge found that the plaintiffs had established the whole of their case. A permanent grant of britti was made by Krishna Kanta Nandy who had established at the home of the plaintiffs the two deities and provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jah of 675,000 and pay off certain scheduled incumbrances and unsecured liabilities. The bulk of the Raj estate was assigned to the trustees by way of mortgage or trust to keep down the necessary charges, and create certain reserve funds including a sum of three lacs which the Maharajah estimated would be sufficient for his personal household expenses. The Maharajah covenanted inter alia that the property was free from all incumbrances other than those mentioned in Schedule 4 to the deed which did not include the charge now alleged to exist. In February 1929 on the application of the Maharajah Manindra the; estate was taken under the management of the Court of Wards by whom it is now managed subject to the provisions of the deed of trust of 1923. In 1929 the Maharajah Manindra died and was succeeded by the present Maharajah Sris Chandra Nandy. On 10th April 1929 the plaintiffs presented a petition to the General Manager of the Kasimbazar Raj Ward's Estate alleging that they had been receiving for generations from the estate an annual annuity allowance of: ₹ 4000, that they had been spending the said allowance as well as their own income towards the worship of several dei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this connexion that whereas I have these additional sources of income which are not covered by the trust deed I have at the same time additional demands on me for Debkarjya, Brittis forspiritual guides and Brahmin Pundits and the maintenance of educational institutions which have been recognised by the family from generations past. I shall be glad if you will consider all the facts relating to this matter and recommend to the Court for acceptance of the charge of paying ₹ 4000 annually to the Thakurs of Shrikhanda which is in reality a charge on the Kasim bazar Raj Estate. Yours sincerely, Manindra Chandra Nandy. L. B. Burrows, Esqr., B. A., Manager, Kasim bazar Raj Wards' Estate, 2/1, Russell Street, Calcutta. So far from regarding this letter as proof of a legal charge, their Lordships are of opinion that it tends to negative such a claim. The Maharajah is obviously seeking to limit his personal liabilities: and is treating the continual payment of this britti as an instance of the additional demands on me for Debkarjya and britti for spiritual guides and Brahmin Pundits and the maintenance of educational institu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case, there are no facts which require a presumption of any lost grant either for the permanent gift of the britti or still less for it being constituted a charge. It appears to their Lordships the natural inference from the known facts that the original founder of the estate granted the britti in his lifetime: and that his successors from pious motives continued the grant to the plaintiffs' successors who continued to be the family spiritual guides, and served and worshipped the family gods. Without assuming any legal obligation it would in the circumstances have been strange if the britti had not been continued. The learned trial Judge working backwards, as it would seem from the fact that the payment was continued for several generations, has imputed to the founder the intention that it should continue for all those generations; and has so drawn the inference that he did in fact grant a permanent britti; and took steps to secure its permanence by creating a charge, the uncertainty of the terms of which their Lordships have already discussed. 7. The trial Judge, it is true, found that Krishna Kanta Nandy established the deities. The High Court have found that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia that this mode of regarding the law of evidence should emphatically be stated to be unsound. What matters should be given in evidence as essential for the ascertainment of truth it is the purpose of the law of evidence whether at common law or by statute to define. Once a statute is passed which purports to contain the whole law it is imperative. It is not open to any Judge to exercise a dispensing power, and admit evidence not admissible by the statute because to him it appears that the irregular evidence would throw light upon the issue. The rules of evidence, whether contained in a statute or not, are the result of long experience choosing no doubt to confine evidence to particular forms, and therefore eliminating others which it is conceivable might assist in arriving at truth. But that which has been eliminated has been considered to be of such doubtful value as on the whole to be more likely to disguise truth than discover it. It is therefore discarded for all purposes and in all circumstances. To allow a Judge to introduce it at his own discretion would be to destroy the whole object of the general rule. There is therefore no such principle as is suggested in the passag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
