MONINDRA LAL CHATTERJEE Vs. HARI PADA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of the defendant. It is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Birbhum, which have affirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsif of Suri. The defendant has been held liable to render account from 1313 to 1337 B.S., and a Commissioner has been appointed to take accounts. Hari Pada Ghose, plaintiff 1, Guru Pada Ghose, the father of the minor plaintiff 2, and plaintiff 3, Gokul Mohini Dassi, wife of Rakhal Das Sarcar, now dead, were the owners of some zemindary and other properties. Hari Pada and Guru Pada were both minors before 1313; the latter who was the eldest of the two attained majority in 1313. At the time when both of them were minors, Rakhal Das Sarcar was appointed their guardian by the District Judge. As such guardian he appointed the defendant- appellant an agent of the minor's estate. His wife also appointed the same gentleman as her agent. The duties of the defendant were to collect the rents and profits of all their properties, to put in Government revenues and rent due to the superior landlords and to pay the net profits to his principals.

(2.) The plaint states that he submitted regular accounts to Rakhal Das Sarcar acting as guardian of the said minors and to him, as the husband of plaintiff 3, till 1313, when Guru Pada attained majority; but since then he has not submitted complete accounts for a single year. The plaint further states that after Hari Pada and Guru Pada attained majority he continued as their agents, and after Guru Pada's death in Magh 1335 (February 1929) he continued as the agent of Hari Pada and Guru Pada's minor son till 1337 or the beginning of 1338 on the same terms. There is no further question that he continued as the agent of plaintiff 3 since his appointment till the beginning of 1338. The plaintiffs have accordingly sued him for accounts for the period 1313 to 1337, as he refused to render accounts in spite of repeated demands made since the commencement of the year 1338. The plaint was filed on 17 April 1934. The main defences now maintained are that the suit is not maintainable and that it is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, and that it is barred by limitation; at least the claim for accounts up to the death of Guru Pada, the father of plaintiff 2, is so barred. Both the Courts below have overruled these defences and have granted the plaintiffs a decree for accounts from 1313 to 1337.

(3.) The points urged by Mr. Bhattacharjya are the following: (i) That the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action; (ii) that the claim for accounts up to the death of Rakhal Das Sarcar is not maintainable on the plaint as filed; (iii) that the defendant's agency under Guru Pada and Hari Pada terminated on the death of Guru Pada, and the claim for the period up to Guru Pada's death is barred by limitation; and (iv) that the claim after the death of Guru Pada is also barred by limitation as the suit has been instituted beyond three years of the termination of the defendant's agency under plaintiffs 1 and 2. Regarding this last mentioned point the learned Subordinate Judge found that the defendants services were dispensed with not in Pous 1337 as alleged by him, but in the beginning of the year 1338. He did not precisely find on what date of Baisakh 1338 the defendant ceased to be the plaintiff's agent, but assuming that his services ceased on 1 Baisakh 1338, which corresponds to 15th April 1931, the suit would be in time if filed on 15 April 1934. It was filed on 17 April 1934, and Mr. Bhattacharjya contended that it was filed too late by two days, but as soon as it was pointed out that 15 and 16 April 1934, were civil Court holidays, he did not pursue the point further and conceded that there was nothing in it. The fourth point therefore need not be conaidered further.