Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.16 seconds)
Purshottam Vasudeo vs Ramkrishna Govind on 14 September, 1943 cites

Maharaj Bahadur Singh vs Basanta Kumar Roy And Ors. on 17 February, 1913

In Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. Basunta Kumar Roy (1913) 17 C.W.N. 695, and Sasi Sekhareswar v. Hajirannessa (1918) 28 C.L.J. 492: s.c. 22 Bom. L.R. 1289 a suit for accounts was originally brought against the agent himself and after his death during its pendency it was allowed to be continued against his legal representative, but it was held that after the death of the agent the burden of proof which originally lay upon him to render an account shifted. In the latter case the learned Judge suggested that the proper course for the Court to follow, after the legal representatives were brought on record, was that the claim made by the plaintiff should be investigated in the presence of the deceased agent's legal representatives and that the onus should be placed upon the plaintiff who must prove each item in the sum which he claims, that is to say, he must prove that each item was actually realised by the agent and further it was not paid to the plaintiff by him and that it would be open to the legal representatives in each case to adduce evidence to show either that the money was never realised by the agent or that it was paid to the plaintiff after realisation or was properly spent. The Court should then pass a decree for the amount found due to the plaintiff against the assets of the deceased agent in the hands of the legal representatives.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1