(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for settlement of accounts. They allege that on the 23rd December 1901 the 1st defendant was appointed by the District Judge of Tipperah to be common manager of their taluk under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act and that he continued to act in that capacity till the 28th February 1914. The plaintiffs further allege that on the 14th December 1912 the District Judge released one third share of the taluk from the management of the defendant. The plaintiffs accordingly pray (a) for a direction upon the 1st defendant to submit regular accounts for the entire period of his management; (b) for an examination of the accounts that are submitted; (c) for recovery of the amount that may, upon an examination of the accounts, be found due in respect of their shares; (d) for recovery of Rs. 500 as costs of preparation of the papers, should the defendant fail to submit regular accounts within the time allowed by the Court; and (e) for recovery of the decretal amount by sale of the immoveable properties of the 1st and 2nd defendants mentioned in the security bond executed by them. The 2nd defendant is the surety and the remaining defendants are persons interested in the taluk who have not joined as plaintiffs in the suit. The first two defendants in their written statement denied all the material allegations in the plaint. Fourteen issues were thereupon framed, but only four of them were taken up for disposal as of a preliminary character: (2) Is the suit maintainable without the consent of the District Judge; (3) Is the suit maintainable without notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code; (4) Is the suit barred by res judicata; (10) Is the 1st defendant liable to render any accounts other than the quarterly accounts he submitted to the District Judge. The Subordinate Judge has answered the issues (2), (3) and (10) against the plaintiffs and issue (4) in their favour; in this view he has dismissed the suit, Upon the present appeal, the decision of the Subordinate Judge upon issues (2), (3) and (10) has been assailed as erroneous. The answer to the questions raised depends upon the view we take of the position of a common manager appointed under the Bengal Tenancy Act.
(2.) The provisions for the appointment of common managers are contained in sections 93-- 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Section 93 invests the District Judge with authority to call upon co owners to show cause why they should not appoint a common manager, when the District Judge is moved by the Collector or a person having an interest in the estate or tenure. Section 94 empowers the District Judge to make an order directing the co-owners of the estate or the tenure to appoint a common manager, Section 95 deals with oases where the order is not obeyed; the District Judge may, in such an event, direct that the estate or tenure be managed by the Court of Wards, if the Court of Wards consents to undertake the management, or to appoint a manager. Section 96 restricts the choice of the District Judge in the selection of a common manager in a local area where the Local Government has nominated a person to act as common manager, Section 97 makes the provisions of the Court of Wards Act for the management of immoveable property applicable to oases where the Court of Wards undertakes the management of an estate or tenure. Section 98 embodies the provisions applicable to common managers which are set out in the following terms. (1) A manager appointed under Section 95 may, if the District Judge thinks fit, be remunerated by a fixed salary or percentage of the money collected by him as manager, or partly in one way, and partly in the other, as the District Judge from time to time directs. (2) He shall give such security for the proper discharge of his duties as the District Judge directs. (3) He shall, subject to the control of the District Judge, have, for the purposes of management, the same powers as the co owners jointly might, but for his appointment, have exercised and the co-owners shall not exercise any such power. (4) He shall deal with and distribute the profits in accordance with the orders of the District Judge. (5) He shall keep regular accounts and allow the co owners or any of the to inspect and take copies of those accounts. (6) He shall pass his accounts at such period, and in such form, as the District Judge may direct. (7) He may make any application which the proprietors could make under Section 103. (8) He shall be removable by the order of the District Judge, and not otherwise.
(3.) Section 99 empowers the District Judge to restore the management of the estate or tenure to the co-owners at any time, when he may be satisfied that the management will be conducted by them without inconvenience to the public or injury to private rights. Section 100 authorises the High Court to make rules defining the powers and duties of managers under the foregoing sections.