AL VR ST VIRAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. PERIAKARUPPAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a consolidated appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 21 October 1940, which modified a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dated 26 March 1937. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant representing the joint Hindu family firm AL. VR. ST., which carried on business as money lenders, against its agent the respondent, for accounts. The dispute between the parties now relates to the liability of the respondent with reference to certain items of account decided against the appellant by the High Court. It may be mentioned that the respondent though an agent of the appellant's firm was authorised to carry on business for his personal benefit and to draw from the firm for that purpose, and the accounts disclose that he was carrying on business on behalf of some of his relations and "possibly of some relations of the plaintiffs also."

(2.) The business of the family carried on at Bhavani in the Coimbatore District of the Province of Madras, with which this litigation is concerned, was started in 1911 by the father of the appellant Virappa and his two brothers, Lakshman and Bamanathan. The father died in 1913. The first agent of the firm was one Sunderaraj. The period for which each agent was appointed lasted for about three years, more or less. Sunderaraj's agency referred to as the first period ended in September 1914, when the agency of the respondent commenced. He was appointed agent successively for 1914. 1917, 1917 to August 1919, August 1919 to August 1922, referred to as the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4 period of agency. His 5 period of agency commenced in August 1922. In November 1924, the appellant who was appointed Receiver on 3 December 1923 in a partition suit brought by their maternal grandfather on behalf of himself and his minor brother against their elder brother Lakshmanan on account of mismanagement, and had been in that capacity superintending the business at Bhavani, terminated the respondent's agency, and brought on 20 December 1924, the suit which has given rise to this appeal, charging him with misappropriation, and falsifying accounts, and praying for a decree to direct him to render due and proper accounts, to deliver what are known as rokka chittai accounts, and to pay a sum of Rs. 68,955-15-8 with interest and for other relief. The rokka chittai accounts which were called for, were produced by the respondent in Court in January 1925. Before proceeding further, it will be advantageous to state the nature of these accounts as a large amount claimed in the suit is based on entries contained therein. These accounts do not give particulars of anything but contain only memoranda wherein credits and debits are entered without any detail. The following passage taken from the judgment of the High Court explains their nature and the other account books in this case : "It may be observed here that these rokka chittai accounts were intended to relate mainly to dealings or transactions of a provisional character, and covered not merely the dealings of the plaintiff's firm, but also dealings which the defendant was authorised to carry on for his own personal benefit as well as dealings which he was carrying on behalf of certain persons who can be conveniently referred to as the relations, for among them were certainly defendant's wife, sister and daughter and possibly-though this does not clearly appear-some relations of the plaintiffs. Regular accounts consisting of bound day-books and ledger-books were maintained in respect of the dealings of the plaintiff's firm and the defendant's own individual dealings and somewhat less formal accounts were also separately kept in the form of small stitched note- books in respect of the dealings of these relations, which were far fewer in number and smaller in extent. The rokka chittais which related in part to dealings under each of the above categories were small loose sheets of papers strung together and were thus of an informal character. It is common ground that these rokka chittais were mostly written by one or other of the three clerks who were employed in the plaintiffs firm and were working under the defendant."

(3.) By the judgment of the High Court in appeal, dated 17 November 1931, which modified the preliminary decree passed by the Subordinate Judge on 3 December 1928, it was held that the respondent should render accounts during the 4 period of his agency commencing from February 1922, the date of the institution of the partition suit, and for the 5 period till its termination. As the respondent had not delivered rokka chittais till after the suit was filed the High Court also held, as mentioned in the judgment now under appeal, that the appellant and his brothers "were entitled to call upon the respondent to render an account of the transactions disclosed by the rokka chittais and not covered by the other accounts which the respondent had already delivered though such transactions might relate to the period prior to February 1922."