(1.) The Appellant, who had applied before the District Judge of 24-Parganas for the revocation of a probate, granted to the Respondent No. 1, in respect of the alleged will of one Probodh Chandra Mitter, filed the present appeal against the order of the learned District Judge rejecting his application for removal of Respondent No. 1 from his charge of the disputed properties as receiver and administrator pendente lite under an appointment, made in the said revocation case. By consent of the parties, Respondent No. 1 was originally appointed the administrator pendente lite in respect of all the said properties under certain terms and conditions and, thereafter, in the course of the revocation case, the said appointment and its terms and conditions were varied from time to time and eventually the parties agreed to accept the position that Respondent No. 1 would be the receiver in respect of the Bristol Hotel and would continue to be the administrator pendente lite in respect of other properties upon certain modified terms. For our present purpose, it is not necessary to set out in any detail the terms of appointment, eventually accepted by the parties, excepting that under the said terms of his appointment Respondent No. 1 was to pay Rs. 450 per month as a monthly allowance to the Appellant and was also to submit monthly accounts.
(2.) The Appellant alleged inter alia that Respondent No. 1 had been consistently neglecting his above duties, specially set forth in the preceding paragraph, and flouting the orders of the Court, made in that behalf, and, upon such allegations, he applied to the Court on March 18, 1952, for removal of Respondent No. 1 from his charge of the disputed properties as receiver and administrator pendente lite as aforesaid.
(3.) The allegations were denied and the prayer for removal was strongly opposed before the learned District Judge and eventually the matter was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, 2A.-Parganas.