SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS Vs. RASSESWARI CHAUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claim for Rs. 28,286-13-6 put forward by the firm of Ram Kissen Das Bagri in the administration of the estate of one Srish Chunder Das. The following issues were raised; (1) Was any money advanced by Ram Kissen Das Bagri, if so, when and to whom? (2) If the debt was in fact incurred in carrying on the testator's business, were the executors entitled or justified in carrying on the business at the date when such debt was incurred, and was sash debt properly incurred and has the testator's estate benefited thereby? (3) Are the executors entitled to be indemnified out of the assets of the testator or any part thereof in respect of the debt in question? (4) Is the claimant entitled to be subrogated to the right of indemnity, if any, of the executors? (5) What sum, if any, is the claimant entitled to recover out of the estate? (6) Was the business mentioned in the pleadings ancestral? (7) Was the business carried on with the assent of the guardian of Sudhir? (8) Was the business carried on with the assent of the creditors of the estate or the legatees under the testator's Will?

(2.) Srish Chandra Das died on the 12 December 1904 leaving four daughters and a widow, the defendant Rasseswari Chaudhurani. Srish left a Will dated the 11 December 1904 whereby he appointed as his executors Srimati Rasseswari and one Rajani Mohan Das and gave his wife power to adopt a son to him, and made the adopted son proprietor of his estate. He gave monthly allowaness to two of his daughters and gave them two houses. The executrix and executor applied for Probate of the Will in the Dacca Court, and a caveat having been entered by one Indumoni on the 5 April 1905, Chunder Kumar Dutt and Amar Chand Laha were appointed Administrators pendente lite. They made a report to the District Judge of Dacca on the 9 April 1905, stating that the estate consisted inter alia of (1) a banking business at Dacca (2) A banking business at Calautta, that the banking business was the backbone of the firm although it was to a great extent hazardous and that the credit of the estate rested entirely on this business which was carried on by borrowing money and was without capital.

(3.) On the 10 April 1905 the District Judge of Dacca passed an order as follows: I think that the Administrators should continue their business on the lines which have been followed heretofore but avoiding transactions which are essentially speculative in their nature. "