BINJRAJ MARWARI Vs. DAS MOOKERJEE AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion, this appeal must be allowed.

(2.) It appears that certain persons were owners of a colliery. One of those persons brought a suit for dissolution of partnership and the usual ancillary reliefs. While the suit was pending, the Court in 1917 made an order, first of all, appointing one Purna Chandra Barman to be the receiver of the partnership assets which had to be administered. On 28 June of that year, defendants 1, 2 and 4 put in an application agreeing to the appointment of Babu Purna Chandra as manager of the disputed colliery on Rs. 50 per month but objecting to his appointment as receiver. Accordingly, the plaintiff's pleader having intimated that his client had no objection to the appointment of Purna Chandra Barman as manager of the disputed colliery on Rs. 50 per month, the order appointing him receiver was cancelled and the Court appointed Purna Chandra Barman manager of the disputed colliery on Rs. 50 a month. That was the order on 28 June 1917. In January 1918. there is an order: Manager Purna Chandra Barman is directed not to pay any amount out of the profits of the disputed colliery to any of the partners without the permission of this Court; and, later on in February 1918: the manager is directed to deposit in Court at once the profits of the colliery now in his hands as also the future profits.

(3.) It would appear that, in 1918, a preliminary decree was passed and it would appear that at some subsequent time a receiver was appointed and that the colliery has since been sold. The time with which we are concerned is December 1921 to February 1923 and, at that time, it would appear that this Mr. Barman had been acting as manager whatever that title may connote for some four years. Some timber was wanted for the colliery and the plaintiff supplied the timber. The plaintiff brings his suit against some five or six persons but does not include among the defendants Mr. Purna Chandra Barman. The plaintiff's case in his evidence, if not in his pleadings, is that he got the order to supply this timber direct from the defendants or some of them themselves. That is entirely disbelieved. The finding of fact is that he got the order straight from this Mr. Barman.