The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday April 1 1907

But the law of agency would not apply in such cases inasmuch as the committee are not the agents of the lunatic; they are officers of Court under whose control the property is placed and their neglect cannot be imputed to the lunatic THE DECISION OF THIS QUESTION DEPENDS UPON A consideration of the nature of the responsibility of the owner of a property. [...] the mortgagee) could bring a suit for recovery of possession of the properties on the basis of his purchase under the mortgagdecree and the subsequent mortgagee and the puchaser could redeem the mortgage to the extent of the properties they had got. [...] FROM THIS DECISION IT FOLLOWS THAT IF THE mortgagee in Gangadhur Bhatter v. Jogendranath Mitter had moved the Court to add or if the Court had of its own accord added the subsequent morgagee and the purchaser as Defendants to the suit after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for the mortgage-suit the property in the hands of the added Defendants would not have been affected [...] In this case a Miss Collis was desirous of inspecting the list of the amount of stock which had been transferred by the Bank of England to the credit of the Commissioners. [...] He says he was not aware that when the complaianwas cross-examined he was being cross-examined at the instance only of the first accused because it is not the practice in the Calcutta Police Court to put in vakalatnamah and he appears to have regarded the attempt to cross-examine the complaianagain as a mere device on the part of the accused to protract the proceedings.