MADAN MOHAN MISSIR Vs. PT GIRDHARAN PRASAD MISSIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is by the legal representatives of one Chandrabhukhan Prasad Missir. Their father was defendant fourth party in Title Suit No. 137 of 1948. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs were the next reversioners to the estate of one Prasidh Narain Mishra and were entitled to possession of the properties in suit.

(2.) The said Chandra Bhukhan Prasad Missir was subsequently added as fourth party to the suit on 24-6-1955 under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil P. C. claiming to be the next reversioner. The title suit was dismissed in favour of the said Chandra Bhukhan Prasad Missir holding that it was he, who was the real next reversioner and not the plaintiffs.

(3.) Plaintiffs (opposite party Nos. 1 and 2) filed First Appeal No. 82 of 1956 in this Court and in the said appeal they made an application for appointment of a receiver. This Court by order dated 13-8-1959 in the first appeal, appointed Chandra Bhukhan Prasad Missir as the receiver. The appeal was ultimately compromised on 5-5-1964. Chandra Bhukhan Prasad Missir died on 3-1-1967. Long time after a petition was filed by the plaintiffs on 7-11-1970 in the trial court stating that the accounts submitted by the said receiver had not been accepted by the Court so far and the plaintiffs' objections were still pending. It was further stated that the receiver having been dead, it was necessary to bring his heirs and legal representatives on the record. The names were mentioned in the petition in question. The petition was allowed by the trial court and having issued the notice to the petitioners, the trial court by the impugned order dated 14-11-1972 not only considered the accounts of the receiver but determined the gross income derived by him out of the estate. It also considered the Pleader Commissioner's report. The accounts that had been considered by the court below were from the beginning of 1959 since Chandra Bhukhan Prasad Missir was appointed as receiver. It is this order that has been challenged in this court.