GOURI SANKAR MUKHERJEE Vs. SANKAR PROSANNA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and it arises out of a suit for accounts brought by them along with Plaintiff No. 1 since deceased of whom Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are the legal representatives, the Plaintiffs Nos. 4, 5 and 6 against the Defendant-Respondent No. 1.

(2.) It appears that Plaintiff No. 4 Tarasankar Mukherjee was appointed common manager of the joint estate of the six Plaintiffs and pro forma Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 which included mahal lot Sonj in 16 annas. The appointment was made by the learned District Judge, Birbhum, under Sec. 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The common manager was eventually discharged by the learned District Judge on 7th Bhadra, 1353 B.S., corresponding in Aug. 24, 1946. The Plaintiffs allege that, during Plaintiff No. 4's term of common managership, he appointed Defendant No. 1. Sankar Prosad Mukherjee as gomosta of the said mahal Sonj and this appointment terminated as a matter of law with the discharge of the common manager as aforesaid. They further allege inter alia that the said Defendant has not rendered accounts of his work as gomosta as aforesaid either to the common manager or to the Plaintiffs or anybody else. On the above allegations, they bring the present suit for accounts. The other prayers in the plaint are not material for our present purpose as the only point which has been argued before us in this appeal relates to the question of maintainability of the suit as a suit for accounts.

(3.) The defence is a denial of the Plaintiff's' material allegations. The Defendant contends that he was never appointed a gomosta by the Plaintiff No. 4 and never worked as such under him or under the Plaintiffs' estate, whether in respect of the disputed mahal Sonj or any other mahal; that he never kept any money of the estate or the mahal in his custody and never had any liability to render accounts either to the Plaintiff No. 4 as common manager or to the Plaintiffs or their estate. He further contends that even on the Plaintiffs' allegations, the suit was not maintainable in law as there was no fiduciary relationship between him and the Plaintiffs or any of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff No. 4 having sued merely as a co-proprietor along with the other Plaintiffs.