UMRAO SINGH Vs. HAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., claiming many reliefs including the removal of the defendant trustee, the rendering of accounts of income and expenditure from 1902 when he took over charge, the appointment of new trustees and the vesting of the trust property in them, as well as other directions said to be necessary. It appears that the defendant took over charge as trustee of this endowed property in 1902 and was managing it without any objection on the part of the other members of his family. In 1915-1916 plaintiff 1, his younger brother, moved the Legal Remembrancer for sanction to file a suit against him. Some inquiry through the Collector was presumably made and the Legal Remembrancer declined to grant the sanction. No suit, therefore, could be instituted; but the defendant certainly became aware that his management was being questioned by his younger brother.

(2.) After the coming into force of Act 14, 1920 the present plaintiff filed an application in the Court of the District Judge on 7 March 1927 under Section 5 of that Act, praying that the trustee be ordered to file the accounts of the income of the trust property, and to refrain from cutting any trees; and that in case he was found incapable of managing the trust property, he should be removed from his office and the petitioner be appointed trustee in his place. The application was of course objected to by the defendant Umrao Singh. In the first instance the learned Judge issued a notice to the defendant on 30 March 1927, directing him to file account books by 2nd April. He also issued an injunction prohibiting him from cutting down any trees or removing any timber. The defendant filed certain abstract statements of income and expenditure but not regular accounts. On 21st November 1927 the petitioner applied to the Judge stating that the trustee had not filed any original accounts together with the receipt books and other papers, and that he had filed no accounts whatsoever for the year 1926-1927. On that application the learned Judge passed the following order: I have seen the accounts. They are worthless. Proper accounts including receipts and bahikhatas must be filed within two days.

(3.) On 23 November 1927, the trustee filed an application stating that he had filed the account which was with him in compliance with the order of the Court and that he had got "no better account" and was therefore unable to comply with the order. The petitioner protested against this statement and alleged in his application of the same date that the trustee had not filed the original accounts and receipts, and that what he had filed were fabricated and unreliable. On this the learned Judge made this order: Yes, he must have the original. These are only abstracts,