MANOHARLAL Vs. CHATTER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by Manoharlal, Parshava Chand and Prakash Chand sons of Roshanlal (defendant No. 1) under order XLIII, rule 1 (1) C. P. C. against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated April 13, 1968.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal may briefly be noticed. THE plaintiffs Chattar Singh, Sheodan Singh, Himmat Singh and Roshanlal instituted a suit for rendition of accounts under section 92 C. P. C. against the members of Shri Jain Swetamber Prabhu Pujak Dharmsala Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') a registered Institution of the former Mewar State in connection with the trust property relating to a Jain Dharmsala. THE suit was instituted in the court of District Judge, Udaipur on November 11, 1955 after obtaining sanction from the Advocate General of Rajasthan. It is necessary here to mention that the Advocate General accorded permission to the plaintiffs to file a suit against the whole body of the Managing Committee of Shri Jain Swetamber Prabhu Pujak Dharmshala Committee for rendition of accounts under section 92 C. P. C. vide his order dated September 5, 1955. While according permission he specifically noted that from the trend of accounting between the Dharmsala and the firm. Roshanlal Chatur cannot be accused of malafides in charging the interest from the Dharmsala on the previous running accounts in the Samvat year 2003. It was also mentioned that Roshanlal Chatur and his predecessors had rendered substantial service in the cause of Dharamsala by supplying the neded funds without which there would perhaps have been serious obstacles in the way of the construction of the Dharmsala. According to the Advocate General the adjustment of Rs. 16127. 9 annas on account of interest after the partners of the firm had declared that they had given up their claims of interest against the Dharmsala raised a serious legal issue as to whether Roshanlal Chatur was legally justified in doing so even though the declaration had been made in the proceedings to which the Dharamsala Committee was not a party. In these circumstances he concluded that it is desirable in the case of this Public Trust that the matter should be submitted before the competent Court for its adjudication, THE following extract from the order of the Advocate General dated September 5, 1955 needs to be quoted: " THE suit should however, be filed against the whole of the Managing Committee including all its members and not against Shri Roshan Lal Chatur and Shri Manoharlal Chatur only because the responsibility for the maintenance of accounts is of the whole committee and not of the two individuals members only, particularly when it is alleged on behalf of the non-applicants and also substantiated to a certain extent that they have been singled out by the applicants Shri Veer Chand Siroya and Shri Chatersingh Nahar on account of the grudge and malice. . . . . . . . . " In the plaint in para 16 rendition of accounts was clamed against all the members of the Committee. After trial of the suit the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur passed a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts on September 6,1960 against defendant No. 1 Roshanlal Chatur ordering him to render accounts to the plaintiffs from the year Samvat 1965 upto that date and Shri Mangilal Khabia was appointed Commissioner for the purpose.

(3.) MR. D. L. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the appellants, who are heirs of deceased Roshanlal Chatur, (defendant No. 1) against the preliminary decree for rendition of accounts was passed, are liable, as they are legal representatives of the deceased Roshanlal Chatur within the meaning of section 2 (11) C. P. C. In this connection he invited my attention to Roshanlal Kunja Mal vs. Kapur Chand (8 ). MR Mehta also submitted that the preliminary decree dated September 6, 1960 was passed against defendant No. 1 Roshanlal Chatur in his personal capacity and, therefore, his legal representatives are liable. After making reference to sections 15, 19 and 63 of the Indian Trust Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), MR. Mehta submitted that the heirs of Roshanlal Chatur cannot escape the liability of rendering accounts in pursuance of the decree passed against him. Reliance was placed by him on Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandy vs. Supravat Chandra (9), Purushottam Vasudeo vs. Ramkrishna Govind (10), Bhusan Chandra Mondal vs. Chhabimoni Dasi (11), Prafulla Kumar Mullick vs. Sm. Firoza Sundari Dassi (12), Girijanandini Devi vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary (13) and R. S. Shri Ram Parshad vs. Smt. Chhano Devi (14 ). As to who is the legal representative learned counsel made reference to Brijkishore Singh vs. Sm. Nasuk Bai (15 ).