RADHIKAPRASAD DANI Vs. NANDKUMAR LAXMAN PRASAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit between co-owners for accounts. The main part of the claim is concerned with village profits. There is however added to it a small claim for accounts in respect of certain common property. This claim is however so small that it can be ignored so far as the main purpose of the appeal is concerned. The lower Court has decreed a certain figure and the defendant appeals claiming that the amount should be reduced. There is also a cross-objection by the plaintiffs who want the decree to be enhanced. The parties are members of the same family though they are not joint. There was a partition between them in the year 1911. The following family tree will show their relationship: SRI KRISHNA DANI ________________________________|_______________________ | | | Ramdas Laehmanprasad Ramnarayan | | | Radhikaprasad (Deft.) | | ____________________________|______________ | | | | | Nandkumar Jagdish Krishna | (plfi. 1) (plff. 2) (plfl. 3) | _________________________|_ | | Ramkumar (plff. 4) Dharamkumar (plff. 5).

(2.) THE defendant Radhikaprasad is and has been at all material times the lambardar of mouza Gudhiyari in respect of which the main claim is founded. He is also the manager of the remaining joint properties which, as we have said, are very small compared to the main village. According to the defendant's learned Counsel the defendant forms one group by himself and the plaintiffs, though not joint, form another group. The plaintiffs' affairs were looked after or managed in a general sort of way during the years of the suit, which years are 1929-30, 1930-31 and 1931-32, by Ramnarayan, the father of plaintiffs 4 and 5. According to the defendant, Bamnarayan and he were in joint management and the practice between them was for Ramnarayan to recover such portion of the profits as he chose and for the defendant to recover the rest. There was no fixed arrangement as to which should recover which portion of the profits but they acted in harmony even though the arrangement was a haphazard one. The defendant states that this relieves him from all liability to account because Ramnarayan is also liable to account. In our opinion this is not so and this argument can be disposed of at once.

(3.) THE plaintiffs had instituted a previous suit (Ex. D-14) for the profits of the years 1928-29, 1929-30 and 1930-31, but that claim failed for some technical reason. No objection is however taken to the maintainability of the present suit for that reason. Counsel on both sides are agreed about this and we need not inquire into it any further. The defendant's case, as we have said, is that there was joint management between Ramnarayan and himself. When however we scrutinise the evidence we find that the only times when Ramnarayan appears to have associated himself with the defendant were prior to the years in suit except as regards one matter, also, so far as the documentary evidence is concerned it consists of documents to which Ramnarayan has affixed his signature. The explanation given on behalf of the plaintiffs is that lessees and the like were not always satisfied with documents given by the defendant but required the signature of the other cosharer in addition and this was naturally done. But this did not signify actual management. But however that may be, it does not make any difference because, as we have said, there is a statutory liability upon the defendant to account so far as the village Gudhiyari is concerned and he cannot relieve himself of it by allowing another person to assist him in discharging his statutory duties.