25/05/2021 (Maulvi) Abdul Rab vs Hakim Mohammad Hasan Khan on 22 August, 1936

Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer Mobile View

rab Search

View Complete document

(Maulvi) Abdul Rab vs Hakim Mohammad Hasan Khan on 22 August, 1936

Showing the contexts in which rab appears in the document

Change context size Small Current Large Larger

2. The plaintiff-appellant, Maulvi Abdul Rab, on seeing the draft of the power of attorney, refused to
execute it. The District Judge then passed an order that he would execute it himself on behalf of
Maulvi Abdul Rab and he did so. After that the respondent took charge of the property and collected
the rents and profits. This second appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by Abdul Rab in
order to obtain his share of the profits from the defendant-respondent. One of the pleas taken by the
defendant-respondent was that no suit should be instituted against him unless notice had been given to
him under Section 80, Civil P.C. He said that he was a public officer within the meaning of Section 2,
Sub-section (17), Clause (d), Civil P.C., because he had been especially authorised by the District
Judge to perform the duties of managing the property and making collections. This defence was
repelled by the learned Munsif, but the learned Subordinate Judge has accepted it and has dismissed
the suit upon the ground that notice had not been issued. He has also remarked that the defendant could
not be sued in his capacity as a Receiver without the sanction of the Court which appointed him. The
argument in this Court is that the defendant-respondent was not appointed a receiver by the Court and
that he was not a public officer within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-section (17), Civil P.C. It is not
clear from the proceedings of the District Judge on what ground he based his authority to execute this
power of attorney on behalf of the plaintiff. He certainly had no authority under the provisions of the
Mussalman Wakf Act. It is suggested on behalf of the respondent that it must be supposed that he was
acting under the provisions of Section 7, Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (14 of 1920) and those of
Order 21, Rule 34, Civil P.C.

https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/49292/?formInput=rab 1/1