SHANKAR LAL Vs. TOSHAN PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit for rendition of accounts on the allegation that the defendants were the agents of a joint Hindu family of which Dhyan Pal Singh father of the plaintiff was the karta op to 1923 and thereafter plaintiff 1 became the karta. The suit has been decreed by the Court below which passed a preliminary decree directing the appointment of a commissioner and an account being taken of what is due from the defendants to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that defendant 1, Pt. Shankar Lal, was employed by Thakur Dhyan Pal Singh, the plaintiff's father, to manage certain zamindari properties belonging to the joint family consisting of Dhyan Pal Singh and his sons, that defendant 2, brother of defendant 1 was associated with the latter in the management of the aforesaid property, that Dhyan Pal Singh died in 1923, after which the plaintiff, who is the eldest son of Dhyan Pal Singh, became the karta, that the defendants continued to act as managers of the family property till October 1928, when they were dismissed, and that they have not rendered any account of sums received by them in their capacity as agents. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are (1) that the defendants be directed to render accounts of the moneys received by them during the term of their employment, namely, 31st March 1921 to 30 October 1928; (2) that the defendants be ordered to deliver to the plaintiff certain receipts and counter-foils mentioned in detail in para. 13(b) of the plaint, and (3) that a decree for Rs. 5,250 or such sum as may be found due from the defendants be passed in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) It was not denied that the defendants were in the employment of Dhyan Pal Singh till 1923 and that their services were retained after the death of Dhyan Pal Singh by the present plaintiff. It was however pleaded that the agency which was in existence in the lifetime of Dhyan Pal Singh terminated on his death and that a fresh agency began with the employment of the defendants by the plaintiff. This aspect of the matter has an important bearing on the question of limitation which will be presently mentioned. It was not clearly admitted in the written statement that the defendants were entrusted with the duty of collecting rents in respect of the zamindari property belonging to the plaintiff's family. Defendant 1 was alleged to have been a mukhtar for conducting cases, but it was admitted that defendant 2 was engaged to collect rents. The defendants case clearly was that whatever liability might arise from collections of rent being made by one or the other of the defendants, the person responsible was defendant 2, and that no liability attached to defendant 1. It was alleged by the defendants that so far as their liability, if any, arising in the life-time of Dhyan Pal Singh was concerned the plaintiff's suit is time-barred, the same having been brought more than three years from the date on which Dhyan Pal Singh died. As regards the collections that might have been made by the defendants after the death of Dhyan Pal Singh, it was alleged that all accounts were rendered to the plaintiff in 1924. As for the period from 1925 to 1928, it was pointed out that the accounts are admittedly with the plaintiff who has satisfied himself of the correctness of the entries therein made. The defendants complained that the plaintiff was in possession of all the account books and connected papers for the year 1921 to 1924, and that it was not possible for the defendants to render any account of sums received by them during that period in the absence of account books withheld by the plaintiff.

(3.) On the pleadings mentioned above the lower Court struck a number of issues. It is noticeable that no issue was framed as to whether both the defendants were entrusted with the duty of collecting rent from the zamindari property belonging to the family. The reason probably was that defendant 1 was examined as a party in the initial stages of the case and certain admissions were elicited from him which made it unnecessary to frame an issue on that point. It is a curious feature of the case that neither party led any oral evidence. Each alleged that the onus lay on the other. The learned Subordinate Judge found with reference to the contents of the written statement and the statement of defendant 1 in pleadings that defendant 1 was the principal agent and that at his request defendant 2 was associated with him in the collection of rent from the zamindari property belonging to the plaintiff. We have been taken through the written statement and the statement of defendant 1, to which reference has already been made, and are satisfied that defendant 1 particularly admitted the plaintiff's case on this point. It is clear from a perusal of the pleadings that originally defendant 1 half-heartedly denied that he had anything to do with the collection of rent, but was subsequently forced to admit being confronted with certain documents, that he was entrusted with the duty of collecting rent, and that defendant 2 was associated with him in that work. On this finding the learned Subordinate Judge was in our view justified in passing a preliminary decree directing the defendants to render an account of what they received in course of their employment as agents on behalf of the plaintiff's family.