NABA KISHORE MANDAL Vs. ATUL CHANDRA CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is a co-sharer in the Bowali estate of which the pro forma defendants Nos. 2 to 20 are also co-owners. The defendant No. 1. was appointed common manager of this estate by the District Judge of the 24-Perganahs under the provisions of Section 95 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and he held that office from the 1st October 1905 to the 16th November 1903, when he resigned. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on the 15th June 1909. The plaintiff states that he asked his co-sharers, the defendants Nos. 2 to 20, to join with him in bringing the suit, but, as they refused, he made them pro forma, defendants. The allegations made in the plaint are of a very indefinite character. They suggest generally that, during the period of his management, the defendant No. 1 failed to include in his accounts all the items which ought to have been included and that he had been guilty of laches and carelessness in the management whereby the plaintiff had suffered damages, and the main prayers are that the defendant No. I may ha ordered to render proper accounts duping his time of management and that, if, after due audit and balancing of the accounts, it be found that any sum is due to the plaintiff, a decree may be passed in the plaintiff s favour for that sum and further that the plaintiff may obtain a decree for damages for the loss he has sustained during the time that the defendant No. 1 was, the common manager of the estate. The plaint concludes by saying that there being no means to ascertain correctly the amount that would be due to the plaintiff on rendition of accounts, the plaintiff values for the present and claims Rs. 4,000, for accounts and Rs. 1,200 for damages.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 put in a written statement in which he alleged that he had been appointed as manager by the District Judge of the 24-Perganahs, that he had submitted accounts to the District Judge for the full period of his management, that hose accounts had been audited, and passed by the District Judge and that no suit for accounts lay against him at the instance of the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing the parties, was of opinion that the suit, as framed, was not tenable and he accordingly dismissed it with costs.