TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1937 (1) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew taken by the Courts below. 2. The kabuliyat, upon which the claim was founded was executed on 30th August 1916, in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of four persons including Sarat Chandra Basu. It contained various stipulations for the payment of royalties and commission on the coal extracted from the mines, and the suits were brought for the recovery of the money due to the plaintiff on the contract. The defendant pleaded that the kabuliyat was neither executed nor registered by him or by any person authorized by him to act on his behalf; and that he was not, therefore, bound by the covenants contained therein. The document purports to have been executed by one Natobar Mukerjee, who had a power of attorney from the defendant. His power to execute the kabuliyat is, however challenged on two grounds : (1) That the power of attorney was not authenticated as required by law. (2) That it did not authorize him to execute the kabuliyat. 3. There can be no doubt that, if Natobar Mukerjee had no authority in law to act on behalf of the defendant, the latter cannot be held liable for the breach of the contract embodied in the kabuliyat. It is therefore necessary to determine whet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt called kabuliyat in his favour containing the terms of the contract entered into between the lessees and the lessor. The plaintiff maintains that it was in connection with the execution of the kabuliyat in question that Sarat Chandra Basu gave the power of attorney to Natobar Mukerjee in order to authorise the latter to act on his behalf. The defendant, on the other hand, argues that the power was given to the attorney for the purpose of executing and registering another document, namely, the agreement between the lessees defining their rights and liabilities inter se arising out of the projected lease. The determination of the dispute depends upon the meaning of the relevant passage of the power of attorney. The document is written in the Bengali language, and it is only its translation in English which is he-fore their Lordships. The parties are, however, at variance as to the correctness of the translation printed in the record. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that this translation is incorrect, and he invites their Lordships' attention to another translation, which appears to have been acted upon by the Court of appeal in India. 7. The history of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e passage describing the document which Natobar Mukerjee was empowered to execute on behalf of his principal. Both the translations contain a recital of the fact that four persons, including Sarat Chandra Basu, had arranged to take a lease for 999 years of certain villages with "underground right" from the Burdwan Raj estate on specified terms. There is-no dispute about this recital. It is the passage following the recital which has caused controversy between the parties. According to the official translation the? passage in question is in these words: In this connexion an agreement has been executed amongst us four persons. Now, in order to execute and register the said agreement on my behalf, I appoint Sri Natobar Mukerjee, caste Brahmin, occupation service, at present of Raneegunj town in the District of Burdwan, as. my special attorney. 10. The unofficial translation of that passage is as follows: And whereas an agreement deed has been written up between the parties for the purpose, now I appoint Natobar Mukerjee of Burdwan at present of Ranigunj, son of Ambica Charan. Mukhopadhya, deceased, by caste Brahmin, by profession service-holder, my constituted att....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....These circumstances, which create a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the official translation, would justify an inquiry by the High Court as to which of the two translations should be accepted as correct. Their Lordships, however, consider it unnecessary to delay the decision of the appeal by making a reference to India, because it is admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no word in the original power of attorney which is equivalent to the word "four" as used in the phrase "amongst us four persons" to be found in the official translation. The original expression can be correctly translated as "between us both parties." It is also admitted that the Bengali word which has been translated in the official translation as "executed," might properly be translated as "written and read." There are also other considerations which militate against the official translation. According to this translation, the document embodying the agreement "amongst us four persons" had already been "executed;" and it would obviously be absurd to empower the attorney to execute" the same document again. But the rival translation does not lead to any such incongruity. After recit....