RAMBHUSAN DAS Vs. RAMJI LAKSHMANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought on behalf of defendant No. 1, Rambhusan Das, Chela of Mahanth Anant Das, against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Samastipur, dated the 19th May, 1958, refusing to indemnify the appellant, who is a Receiver of the estate, for the loans he had borrowed without the sanction of the Court during the years 1361, 1362 and 1363 Fasli, and also refusing to sanction the expenditure with re- gard to the purchase of foodgrains incurred by the Receiver during these three years.

(2.) It appears that the appellant was appointed a Receiver of the estate of the plaintiff Shree Ramji Lakshmanji by an order of the Subordinate judge dated the 21st April, 1954. The title suit was instituted, sometime in the year 1953, but it was dismissed on the 12th August, 1957, by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant before the learned Subordinate Judge that in view of the order of dismissal of the suit the Court had no jurisdiction to call upon the Receiver to account for the income and expenditure of the estate in his possession. This objection was overruled by the learned Subordinate Judge in the order under appeal. It was also directed by the learned Subordinate Judge that the Receiver should furnish accounts from Chait, 1364 Fasli till the date of the dismissal of the suit, and after the accounts have been examined orders regarding discharge of the Receiver would be passed.

(3.) In support of this appeal it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, therefore, the appointment of the Receiver was in itself illegal. It was also submitted that after the dismissal of the suit on the 12th August, 1957, the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to call upon the Receiver to submit accounts with regard to the income and expenditure of the estate in his management. In our opinion there is no warrant in either of these submissions made on behalf of the appellant. We think that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated the 21st April, 1954, appointing defendant No. 1 as Receiver of the estate was a legal order at the time it was passed and it is not rendered illegal by a process of relation back merely because the learned Subordinate Judge ultimately dismissed the suit on the 2th August, 1957, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We are further of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction even after the disposal of the suit on the 12th August, 1957, to deal with the appellant who is an officer of the Court and to require him to submit proper accounts with regard to his dealings with the property in suit. It is manifest that the appellant is in possession of the estate in a fiduciary capacity and the Court had, therefore, ample jurisdiction to compel him to submit accounts of his dealings with the estate. This view is supported by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Administrator-General of Bengal v. Prem Lal Mullick, 22 Ind App 203 (PC), where a suit had been dismissed by an order in Council, reversing a decree of the High Court which set aside as illegal a transfer of a testator's estate by his executors-nominate to the Administrator-general and also appointed a Receiver and directed accounts against the executors. It was held by the Judicial Committee in these circumstances that the Court which appointed a Receiver had ample jurisdiction to deal with its officer, and the executors would remain accountable to the Administrator-General as the transferee of the estate, and could not, if sued, plead res judicata in consequence of the Order in Council. The same view has been reilerated in a recent case of the Supreme Court in Hiralal Patna v. Loonkaran Sethiya, AIR 1962 SC 21 where it was pointed out by Subba Rao, J. that even after the final disposal of the suit as between the parties to the litigation the Receiver will still be answerable to the Court as its officer till he is finally discharged. In view of the principles laid clown by these authorities we are of opinion that the appellant in this case is still answerable to the Court which appointed him for all his dealings with the estate in his capacity as a Receiver. We are of opinion, that the learned Subordinate Judge of Samastipur had ample jurisdiction to deal with the appellant as a Receiver and compel him to submit proper accounts regarding the management of the estate. We accordingly reject the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant on this point.