HURRONATH ROY BAHADOOR Vs. KRISHNA COOMAR BUKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff in the suit, who is the present Appellant, is the owner of a large estate, and the Defendant acted as his dewan for some twenty years or so. Some months before the institution of the suit, the Plaintiff demanded an account of the Defendant's dealings, but the Defendant left the place without rendering any. In June, 1877, the plaint was filed. After stating the Defendant's position and duties as dewan, the Plaintiff alleged that he had taken money out of the treasury in the year 1866, and at other times, and had misappropriated it. He then specified certain sums taken, and certain allowances to which the Defendant was entitled, and concluded thus: "There is a balance against him of Rs. 19,925 14a. for the recovery of which I institute this suit. If by the decision of the Court a larger sum should be proved to be payable to me by him under proofs and papers, the prayer is also for recovery of the same."

(2.) THE High Court has said that this is a suit virtually for an account. Their Lordships agree with that view. They think that, though the pleading may not be quite precise or technical, it is impossible to assign any other character to a plaint alleging a continued agency in the Defendant for the purpose of drawing and expending the Plaintiff's money, and praying relief on the ground that the agent had drawn from his principal more than lie had expended for him. To such a claim by a principal, the agent may answer that accounts have been settled between him and his principal, or that, though none have been settled, he has in the course of his agency applied for the principal's benefit as much as he has received or more. Nothing could prevent the Defendant in a suit framed like this from claiming the benefit of an account if in his favour, just as the Plaintiff claims it if a larger sum than he specifies should be found due to him. Such a suit is essentially one for account.

(3.) SUCH findings as these establish a relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under which the latter is accountable for his receipts. Their Lordships think that the regular course would have been to order an account to be taken of the Defendant's dealings with the Plaintiffs money as his dewan or agent. In taking the account either party might waive inquiry as to particular periods of time or particular departments of expenditure, and that is often done. But neither could shut out the other from inquiry into any part of the Defendant's transactions as dewan. In such an account the agent is prima facie liable for what he has received, and is bound to discharge himself; but the evidence which is considered sufficient to discharge him may vary as to different items, and he certainly would be entitled to all such intendments and presumptions as are made in favour of one who is called upon to render an account of transactions which have taken place long ago, though under circumstances which prevent any absolute bar by lapse of time.