PRAFULLA RANJAN SARKAR Vs. SAROJ RANJAN SARKARAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment must begin with the name of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, now deceased, (hereinafter referred to, as Nalini Ranjan or N. R. Sarkar), an inhabitant of Netrokana, Mymensingh (now in East Pakistan ). His skill was considerable. Familiarity obscures for the parties, what to outsiders were his marked characteristics. He became Finance Minister in the undivided Bengal in 1936. He himself was the Receiver in the Estate of Madan Theatres. He gathered fortunes. He became a member of the Viceroy's executive Council. As this appeal relates to the removal of me Receiver of his Estate, it is necessary to have the facts set out in some details.

(2.) NALINI Ranjan died on January 25, 1953 leaving behind him four brothers. The youngest is Saroj, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in this appeal. He filed the suit on September 10, 1956, for partition, and accounts and for appointment of a Receiver, in the Court of the Second Subordinate Judge, Alipore, against his other brothers namely, promode Ranjan (defendant No. 1, respondent No. 2), Pabitra Ranjan (defendant No. 2, since deceased) and Prafulla Ranjan (defendant No. 3 ). Another brother, Ramani Ranjan, predeceased Nalini Ranjan in 1947, leaving behind him two sons, Santi Ranjan and Amit Ranjan, who are defendants Nos. 4 and 5, respondents Nos. 7 and 8 respectively. Ramani's widow, Sm. Snehalata, is defendant No. 6, respondent No. 9. Pabitra's heirs namely, his widow, sm. Nirupama his son viz. , Pradip Ranjan and his two daughters, viz. Sm. Namita and Sm. Anita, are defendants Nos. 2 series, respondents Nos. 3 to 6 respectively. Two outsiders, namely, Sri ramendra Chandra Roy, Sri Sudhir kumar Pattanabish. and two Joint Stock Companies viz. P. R, Sarkar and Co. (Private) Ltd. , and N. R. Sarkar and Co. (Private) Ltd. are all impleaded as proforma defendants Nos. 7 to 10 (proforma respondents Nos. 10 to 13)respectively in the suit and in the appeal, on the allegations that some of the properties left by Nalini Ranjan, stand in their names and the suit should be decided in their presence. It presupposes classic clash of individual interests.

(3.) THE instant appeal by Prafulla, the defendant No. 3, is directed against the order of the earned Subordinate Judge, rejecting his application for removal of the Receiver, in respect of the disputed properties. which are valued at more than Rupees sixteen lakhs and a half.