KANTI CHANDRA TARAFDAR Vs. RADHARAMAN SIRKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by defendants 1 and 2 from a final decree in a suit which wa3 instituted by the plaintiff against them and some other persons including one Jatindra Nath Bose. The plaintiff is a universal legatee under the will of his grandmother. The will was executed in 1909 and the testatrix died soon after. There were five executors named in the will amongst whom were the two defendants and the aforesaid Jatindra Nath Bose. According to the provisions in the will the plaintiff was to get the estate when he attained majority and the executors were to act as such during his minority. In 1911 all the five executors applied for and obtained probate of the will. Defendant 2 was also appointed guardian of the plaintiff. The plaintiff attained majority on 11 Aswin 1325 (=28 September 1918) and instituted this suit on 7 September 1923.

(2.) The plaintiff prayed inter alia for setting aside certain transfers which defendants 1 and 2 had made on declaration of his title to the properties transferred, for recovery of possession of the said properties, for production of certain papers and also for recovery of some moveables. With these reliefs which were granted to the plaintiff in part in the preliminary decree that was passed in the suit, we are not concerned. His other prayers were for accounts and for compensation. A preliminary decree granting these reliefs also was passed, which was taken to this Court on appeal, but the appeal was dismissed, the decree passed by the trial Court being upheld. In pursuance of the directions contained in the preliminary decree, the Commissioner made the usual investigation and submitted a report. On this report and with some modification of the recommendations therein the final decree has been passed.

(3.) It is unnecessary to set out in detail the pleadings of the parties or the points in issue that arose on them, because of the preliminary decree which can no longer be challenged. That decree settled the rights and liabilities of the parties to this extent: that it ordered defendants 1 and 2 to render accounts to the plaintiff for the period 1318 to 1326, both inclusive. At the investigation held by the Commissioner the appellants did not render any accounts or produce any account papers because, as they said, they had none in their possession The Commissioner thereupon proceeded on the basis of probable income and probable expenditure, upon such materials as the plaintiff supplied and on so much of them as he thought fit to accept and he submitted a report on that basis. The Subordinate Judge on the objection of the appellants made some little variations in the Commissioner's figures and then made the decree which is complained of in the appeal.