MAHADEO PRASAD Vs. SOORAJ PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been taken that no second appeal is competent. In order to answer this plea it will be necessary to see what was to nature of the suit.

(2.) Briefly, the plaintiffs case was this. They are minors. Their father purchased certain property and entrusted the management of the same to the defendant who is the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs. The father advanced certain sums of money from time to time to the defendant in order that the same might be lent to the tenants. The father died in September, 1918. The defendants refused to render an account of the moneys that he received and realised, sometime in 1921, hence the suit.

(3.) It appears to me that on the allegations made in the plaint the suit was one for accounts and was, therefore, exempted from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court by Art. 31 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It is clear that, if the defendant can satisfactorily explain what he did with the money there will be no decree. All that was necessary for the plaintiffs to prove was what amount of money the defendant realised and what sums he otherwise got from the plaintiffs father or from the plaintiffs themselves in order that the money might be lent out to advantage. I overrule the preliminary objection.