RAJA PEARY MOHUN MUKHERJEE Vs. MONOHAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is an appeal from an order for account made in a proceeding supplemental to a suit instituted by the respondent against the appellant, for the administration of a debutter estate, for the removal of the trustee, fro the appointment of new trustee or Receiver fro declaration that an execution sale of a portion of the trustee estate when it was purchased by the trustee in the name of his son was invalid and inoperative for proper investment of a sum of Rs. 11,500 alleged to form part of the trust estate and for other incidental reliefs. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. On appeal to this Court the judgment was asset aside and the suit was decreed in the following terms: It is declared that the sale of Bahirgora held on the 14 January 1913 is not operative against the debuttet estate, but the first defendant (the shebait) is entitled to be reimbursed, the precise amount recoverable by him to be investigated by the Court below. Steps will be taken forthwith to place the debutter estate in the hands of a Receiver to be appointed by this Court and the first defendant will cease to be shebait from the date when the Receiver takes possession: Manohar Mockerjee V/s. Peary Mohan Mookerjee 54 Ind. Cas. 6 : 30 C.L.J. 177 : 24 C.W.N. 478.

(2.) On appeal to the Judicial Committee this decision was affirmed: Peary Mohan Mukerji v. Mgnohar Mukerji 62 Ind. Cas. 76 : 48 I.A. 258 : 34 C.L.J. 86 : 41 M.L.J. 68 : 14 L.W. 104 : 23 Bom. L.R. 913 : (1912) M.W.N. 554 : 19 A.L.J. 773 : 2 P.L.T. 725 : 26 C.W.N. 133 : 30 M.L.T. 24 : (1922) A.I.R. (P.C.) 235 : 48 C. 1019 (P.C.). The judgment of the Judicial Committee concluded as follows: An order must be made declaring that the purchase by the second appellant (son of the shebait) was invalid and that proper and necessary steps should be taken to secure the property, and that the first appellant (the shebait) is entitled, subject as herein mentioned, to re-payment of the purchase-mony. An account should be directed showing what, if anything, is due from the first appellant (the shebait) to the estate, and such money should be deducted from the purchase-moneys, the balance, if any, of the moneys in Court to be paid out and the first Appellant (the shebait) to have a charge on the estate for such sum.

(3.) On the basis of this order of the Judicial Committee, the Subordinate Judge has made an order which defines the extent and character of liability of the shebait to render an account, and specifies the mode, the period, and the properties. The shebait has appealed against this order.