CHARLES BENTINCK BARCLAY Vs. ROBERT STANES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are of opinion that the order of the District Judge is not v decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, and is not executable as such. The order does not direct payment by anybody. It is hardly conceivable that the District Judge can have intended to make the new trustees personally liable. The defendants raise by their written statement in the suits, among others, the main questions between the parties (though they are not clearly raised in the issues), namely, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to anything until they have accounted for all sums that have come to their hands in the course of their trusteeship, and whether they have so accounted or whether at the date of the order of the District Judge (the 6 December 1897) the defendants in the suits or the beneficiaries were entitled to demand any further account from the plaintiffs and can demand such accounts. WE must, therefore, allow the appeals, reverse the decrees of the District Judge, and remand the cases for disposal according to law.