References: [1866] EngR 190, (1866) 11 Moo Ind App 28, (1866) 20 ER 11
Links: Commonlii
(Fort William, Bengal) A. purchased a Talook at a sale, in execution of a decree obtained by a judgment-creditor. The Assignee of another judgment-creditor, who had obtained a decree in a separate suit against the estate, brought a suit against the purchaser to set aside the sale, on the ground that the purchase was not bona fide, being made in collusion with the judgment-debtors. Held, on a review of the evidence, that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the decree of the High Court at Calcutta that it was a benamee transaction ; or that the purchaser was acting as an Agent for the judgment-debtors; and the decree of the Court below reversed [11 Moo. Ind. App. 49]. Held further, that the onus probandi was on the Plaintiff to establish the affirmative issue that the money for the purchase of the Talook was supplied by the judgment-debtors, or a third party for them, and not by the purchaser. Evidence showing circumstances which may create suspicion is not enough to justify the Court making a decree resting on suspicion only.
On an appeal to the High Court, that Court, acting under the power conferred by section 355 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act, No. VIII. of 1859, ex mera motu, called for and examined fresh witnesses. Held that such power should be cautiously exercised, and the reasons for exercising it recorded or minuted by the High Court on the proceedings;as, first, the witnesses may be such as the parties to the suit do not wish to call ; and, secondly, thc new evidence may not be sufiiciently extensive to satisfy the ends of justice.
