BHARAT CHANDRA CHAKRABARTY Vs. KIRAN CHANDRA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for accounts, brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant who worked as their Tahsildar. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the decision and passed a preliminary decree for accounts for the period in suit, to be taken by a Commissioner to be appointed for the purpose. The defendant has thereupon preferred this appeal.

(2.) The appellant's contention substantially is to the effect that upon the finding of the Court of Appeal below, the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed. It is also urged that in view of the finding that the defendant has submitted all the papers, which it was his duty to prepare and submit, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree in the absence of circumstances justifying the granting of liberty to the plaintiffs to surcharge and falsify. This last mentioned argument, however, is based upon a misconception, for it is not pretended that the accounts were ever settled between the parties in the present case. It is only in the case of settled accounts that liberty has to be obtained by a plaintiff to surcharge and falsify. A suit by a principal for accounts on the allegation that the defendant, his agent, has not rendered any account, has manifestly an entirely different scope from that of a suit in which a principal alleges that the defendant, his agent, has rendered accounts and prays to have them reopened or to have liberty to surcharge land falsity them, on the ground of fraud or material error. The distinction has been clearly pointed out in the case of Prasanna Kumar Mookerjee v. Burn and Co. [1910] 13 C.L.J. 165.

(3.) As regards the main contention of the appellant, the matter stands thus. The plaintiffs case was that the defendant worked as their Tahsildar up to Poush 1326 B.S., and had rendered accounts up to 1323 B.S., that although he submitted certain papers relating to the period from 1324 to the date of his dismissal, these papers were not explained by him and that certain other papers which he should have prepared were not submitted by him, and they claimed the papers mentioned in schedule kha to the plaint as being due from the defendant. The plaintiff:; also alleged that two boats which were in the defendant's charge had not been returned by him, for which they claimed the value along with other sums for which the defendant might be found liable on. examination of the accounts. The defence was that the accounts had already been rendered up to the year 1325 B.S., that the defendant had been dismissed before the close of the year 1326 B.S., and so he could not be liable for the Nikashi papers for that year, but that he had nevertheless submitted all the papers for the said year that he was in the ordinary course required to prepare. The learned Subordinate Judge has distinctly found in his judgment that the defendant has submitted all the papers that it was his duty to prepare and submit, and that the plaintiffs therefore were not entitled to a decree for the papers mentioned in schedule kha to the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge has held, however, that mere submission of papers did not absolve the defendant from liability but that he is bound to explain them which he never did. He, therefore, made a decree which runs in these words :-" There be a preliminary decree for accounts for the period in suit and a Commissioner be appointed by the trial Court for examination of the account papers submitted by the defendant; but not explained by him. The defendant shall explain the papers to the Commissioner, who will, after examining the same, ascertain what sums, if any, are payable by the defendant to the plaintiff or vice versa. The lower Court will consider the plaintiff's claim to the two boats referred to in the judgment."