NARAYANDAS Vs. RADHABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The plaintiffs sued for the accounts of the profits of two villages received by the defendant as lambardar of them both during the three years beginning on the 1st of May 1919, and for payment of his share of them. He alleged that the total amount available for distribution, that is the excess of the income over the expenses, was Rs. 8,117. His share of this sum would be Rs. 2,450-15-6, and to this he added interest from the last day of each year and so claimed Rs. 3,032-3-6. The details of the statement he filed with his plaint were obtained mainly from the defendant's own account books, which he had seen, at least partly, when he was endeavouring to ascertain from her what the amount due to him really was.

(2.) IN reply the defendant admitted that she was the lambardar and that the plain" tiff was a co-sharer to the extent alleged by him. She however filed no accounts, but merely an abstract of the totals of income and expenditure alleged by her during the three years. She said the income was Rs. 16,467-3 and the expenditure Rs. 11,797-14-9, so that the balance for distribution was only Rs. 5,669-4-3. The plaintiff's share of this would be Rs. 1,720-9-3. It is admitted that he has to pay Rs. 85-5 each year to the other co-sharers on account of khudkasht land separately cultivated by him, so that the sum payable by the defendant on her own figures seems to be Rs. 1,464-10-3. It is however, stated, to be Rs. 1,172-8-6.

(3.) EVEN without the preliminary decree for the rendition of accounts that ought to have issued and even if the suit is to be treated as one for money in which the plaintiff had to show how much was due to him, that seems to me to end the matter. The defendant admitted that the income was in excess of the balance for distribution alleged by the plaintiff, but said that the expenditure was greater than what he had allowed. She was further forced to admit that she had good evidence to support that statement if it were true, but steadily and even contumaciously refused to produce it. No sane person could possibly draw any inference from this, but that the statement is false.