KUNJA LAL BHUIYA Vs. HARA LAL BHUIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of his title to certain specified shares in the suit lands and for accounts. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant will appear from 4he following geneological table:

(2.) In the plaint the properties are given in three schedules. Schedule ga gives the homestead and schedule kha gives the khas lands. The plaintiff claims no relief in respect of the properties given by him in these schedules. In Schedule ka the plaintiff gives the tenanted lands. Excepting lots 18 and 19 there is no dispute that the lands of this schedule are joint between the parties; and there is no dispute in the present suit that in lot 7 their joint interest is six annas, that lot 87 is owned by them in 16 annas, and, that in the rest their joint interest is nine annaa. The Court of first instance found that the lots 18 and 19 no longer belong to the parties. This finding is no longer disputed. The plaintiff's ease is that he has half share in these joint properties, namely, three annas share in lot 7, eight annas in lot 37 and four annas 10 gandas in the rest. His claim for account is founded on the case that on Lalit's death Krishna Lai managed the property till his death in 1311 B.s.; that at that time the defendant being only 17 or 18 years old, an agnate of the parties managed the property till the end of 1318 B. Section and that since 1319 B. Section the defendant has been managing the property and consequently he is liable to render accounts for the period of his manage9 ment. The defence inter alia is that Lalit Bhuiyan left a registered will whereby he bequeathed 2/3 of his estate to Krishna Lai and 1/3 to the plaintiff; that this will was not probated but that in 1301 B. Section there was a family arrangement whereby the plaintiff and Krishna Lai agreed to take as desired by Lalit in his will; that since then this family arrangement has all along been acted upon; and that consequently the plaintiff's share in the properties will be two annas in lot 7, 1/3 in lot 37 and three annas in the rest (excluding, of course, lots 18 and 19).

(3.) As regards the claim for accounts the defence is : (1) that the defendant did not manage the property during the period in question; the properties were in the joint management of the plaintiff and the defendant; (2) that the family being a joint Hindu family (a) the plaintiff's claim for account without a suit for partition is not maintainable; (b) the plaintiff cannot recover anything on the basis of the account. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in part. He declared the plaintiff's title to the extent admitted by the defendant and made the defendant liable "to file a statement and account of the joint properties excepting properties 18, 19 and funds." The defendant was made liable to render accounts for the period from 1388 to 1343. The extent of the decree will appear from the decree itself of the learned Munsif. In giving this decree the learned Munsif found : (1)(a) that there was a family arrangement on the basis of Lalit's will: (b) that ibis family arrangement had been acted upon all along by the plaintiff, the defendant and the defendant's father; (c) that the plaintiff had all along been aware of the state of things; (2)(a) that the plaintiff and the defendant still constitute a joint Hindu family; (b) that the plaintiff lived in separate mess from 1304 B.S.; (c) that the defendant managed the property as karta of the joint family since 1319 B.S.; (d) that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff managed the property at any time; (3)(a) that it is settled principle of law in Bengal that any coparcener may, without bringing a suit for partition, require the manager to account for his dealings with the coparcenary property and the income thereof: 13 W.R.F.B. 75 (70) 13 W.R.F.B. 75 : 5 Beng. L.R. 347 (F.B.), Abhaychandra Roy V/s. Pyari Mohan Guho; (b) that no decree can be passed against the manager on the basis of the account taken, so long as the family remains joint : 15 I.C. 616 (12) 15 O.C. 244 : 15 I.C. 616 Sarat Kumari Debi v. Bhola Nath Banerji at p. 618; (c) that the defendant will be liable to account for the existing assets; but that no money relief can be allowed against him unless there be partition; (d) that the defendant's story that the plaintiff took from him the collection papers of 1340-1341 is not true; (i) that the liability of a karta to account is restricted to a period of six years prior to the institution of the suit: 25 C.W.N. 356 (21) 8 A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 571 : 58 I.C. 877 : 32 C.L.J. 25 : 25 C.W.N. 356 Biawambar Haldar V/s. Girbala Dasi.