TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1905 (6) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e had the good sense to ask to go with him to witness the payment, went to the accused. The complainant handed to the Overseer Rs. 59, stating that one rupee was due to him by the aecused as zurpeshgi rent, and that the payment of Rs. 59 would thus discharge the mortgage debt. On arrival at the accused's house the Overseer asked the accused whether what the complainant had told him was true; namely, that the accused owed the complainant one rupee for rent on account of the zurpeshgi mortgage, and whether Rs. 59 would, therefore, make up the debt. The accused said that he owed one rupee as rent for zurpeshgi land. The accused admits saying this in his statement to the Magistrate. It may here be observed that there is no question but that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We may say at once that we entirely disbelieve the case for the defence that there was any other debt due by the complainant than that on the zurpeshgi mortgage, and that the payment was made in respect of the alleged unregistered bond, which was stated to have been executed on the 30th October 1900 for a sum of Rs. 32, carrying interest at the rate of 75 per cent. The case is, therefore, to be decided upon the basis that there was but one debt, namely, that on the zurpeshgi mortgage, that that debt was paid by the complainant, and that the accused has not on such payment made over the mortgage deed or possession of the lands secured thereby. 5. As to the dishonesty of the part taken by the accused, we have no manner of doubt. The questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncumbered with it. Even if the bond debt existed, which we find is not the case, there is not the least reason for supposing that the complainant had any intention to pay off the debt, which was a simple debt, and for which, according to the accused, he was only liable together with eight other persons. The accused knew perfectly well, having been expressly so informed, that the money was offered to him in payment of the zurpeshgi debt. It is remarkable that though he suggests that the money was tendered in respect of the alleged simple bond debt, no evidence was given as to the amount due on that debt, and no conversation of any kind is alleged to have taken place on that point. As we have said, he knew that the money had been offered in p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opinion that it was in the belief that the accused would return the mortgage deed, a belief induced by the accused's conduct, that the money was paid by the complainant, "That such conduct was dishonest we have no doubt. As a result, the accused now has the complainant's money and land, and has refused to return the mortgage deed in respect of which, as he well knew, the money was paid, and refused to return either the money or the land under colour of a false claim which he avoided to put forward before the payment by the complainant, for the reason that he knew, if he had done so, the money would not have been paid. In our opinion the accused intended to, and did, cheat the complainant. 12. In the case of Queen v. Sheodurshun ....