Madhusudan_Das

His Life and Achievements
133
of purchasing the decree originated from them. I knew nothing about it
until they came here to pay the money. I was opposed to their buying it".
In addition to these two charges. several other complaints of transfer
of property on its concealment were brought against him. One of them was
regarding Mr Das's landed propeties in Cuttack and Puri towns including
his Puri house called 'Sailasiam'. All these were mortgaged to creditors'
debts Some of his lands referred to by debtors as assets were found to be
mistaken!) shown in his name in the revisional settlement. In fact, he was
lelt with no assets except books and Furnitures on which his debtors
could lav then hands. Since his mortgaged properly far exceeded in value
than the loan they were ned the fixation of an equity oi redemption' left
him with some assets alter clearing his loans. He had applied to the
government for appointing receiver lor the purpose. Since that was not
done, he had to undergo this paintul experience of declaring his
insolvency and defending the same in self pity.
On the same score as referred above, he had also to defend the
tranfer of small property worth two to three thousand of rupees to the
widow of his brother tor her maintenance. Regarding this property too.
hall of it belonged to her by the right of inheritance. As to other allegations,
of this nature, he had to convince the court that he did not possess a motor
car. that he had no house in Patna: that no furnitures were removed from
his house by Mr. Hazra that he had suspended his practice from 28th to
30th June (1927) and earned little in his chamber: mat he had not earned
Rs. 1.00.000/- (One Lakh) in the adoption case of 1920 which he had to
leave unfinished on his appointment as minister and things of this sort.
One more instance of exploiting Mr. Das's goodness (and
victimising him thereby) is cited as below. A person of his stature had
been victimised by the unscrupulous manipulation of a money lender
named Babu Ganeshlal Pandit. While Mr. Das had borrowed Rs. 7000/-
f 10m Ganeslal. he was sued for Rs.29.000/-. by the former on the basis of
two hand notes which the money lender had cunningly collected from
Mr. Das to put a false claim Rs. 29.000/-This has been explained in detail
by Mr. Das in his own words -
I executed this handout al his request as there was a previous
handnote which he produced. It was understood that accounts
would be looked into afterwards and that he would allow me
certain concessions lor services done by me . Before I filed my
petition I asked him for accounts. But he did not reply. It may be