MAHAMMAD FAIZ CHOWDHURY Vs. EFSANDYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for account and for the delivery of account papers, instituted by a common manager, Mahammad Faiz Chowdhury, appointed as such by the District Judge of Tipperah under Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, against Mr. E. F. Sandys, an ex-common manager. The defendant was discharged from the office of common manager and Mahammad Faiz, the plaintiff, was appointed in his place as the common manager.

(2.) The suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the right to sue for accounts was in the owners of the estate and not in the common manager, and that, at any rate, the common manager could not maintain a suit such as was brought without the express sanction of the District Judge, and that such sanction had not been obtained, The suit, we may here mention, was a suit not only for account, but also for recovery of such sums of money which, upon the account being taken, might be found due by the defendant to the estate; and the plaintiff valued the claim at Rs. 5,482-15-0 odd.

(3.) Section 98 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides in Clause (3): "He" that is to say, the manager, "shall, subject to the control of the District Judge, have, for the purpose of management, the same powers as the co-owners jointly might but for his appointment have exercised, and the co-owners shall not exercise any such power."