SARAT SUNDARI BARMANI Vs. UMA PROSAD ROY CHOWDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After stating the facts as set forth above their Lordships continued: The main grounds urged in this appeal may be summarized thus: (i) That the invontory and account filed during the early stage of the proceedings had been accepted and were final under Section 98 of Act V, and that the District Judge had no power to call for a revised inventory and account. (ii) That he had no power to call for accounts for the subsequent period. (iii) That he had no power to appoint commissioners to audit the accounts. (iv) That he had no power to commence proceedings to revoke the probate under Section 50 of Act V of 1881 on his own motion. (v) That he had no power to admit under Section 50 an. application of a person, who had no sufficient interest. There are many other grounds which deal with partieular incidents in the proceedings or with questions of fact and it is unnecessary for us to go into them.

(2.) The consideration of the first ground depends on the question, what is the duty of the District Court in taking the inventory and account under Section 98 of Act V. On one side it has been contended by the appellants that the District Judge has no power to examine any inventory or account that may be put in under Section 98, and that his duty practically ends with receiving them, when they are put in. On the other hand, it is maintained that the District Judge has full power to check and scrutinize them in order to see whether they are full and true, and to institute an inquiry for that purpose.

(3.) We are of opinion that his duty lies in the mean between these two contentions. The section does not mean that an executor or administrator may tender any papers he pleases and that by simply styling them a full and true inventory or an account of the estate he complies with the requirements of the section. On the other hand, the section nowhere imposes on the District Judge the duty of scrutinizing and auditing the papers and of undertaking for that purpose elaborate and expensive proceedings. Such a scrutiny would be an onerous charge, which we cannot hold to have been laid on him, unless the section clearly says so; and we find no such words. Nor again does the section give the District Judge power to hold a judicial inquiry into the inventory and account of his own motion; and to make the executor or administrator pay the costs of it.