BADRINATH UPADHYA Vs. KESHO KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for account. The defendants were firstly Kesho who is respondent before us and secondly Kesho's father Chintaman. It was said that Chintaman was Tashildar in the estate of Srimati Bacha Bai from 1315 F. onwards to 1336. Thereafter Kesho was the Tahsildar until 1339. The suit was brought on 10 April 1935, for accounts for the whole period 1315 to 1339. During the pendency of the suit Chintaman died and his name Was struck off. The plaintiff continued the suit against Kesho in his own capacity and as representative of Chintainan. The defendant, denied that he was ever the tahsildar or was an agent of the plaintiff. He says that in the last years terminating in 1339 he was a sub-agent acting under his father that Chintaman's employment continued till 1339. It was further alleged that accounts had been rendered.

(2.) It was not the duty of Chintaman to receive money on behalf of the plaintiff because the, plaintiff made his own collections and Chintaman merely prepared receipts; that all the books of account which were in the possession of the defendant or his father had been returned to the office of the plaintiff's estate and that there is no longer any liability to account. The Munsif held that Chintaman worked as tahsildar till 1339 and that Kesho was never an agent of the plaintiff but was for a time a sub-agent under Chintaman.

(3.) He held that Chintaman in fact had acted as tahsildar and had been in charge of collections of money. He held that all the papers in the custody of Chintaman had been submitted to the estate and there was no remaining liability to submit accounts. He said that even if the plaintiff were entitled to demand accounts from Chintaman, he could not enforce this liability against his son, the defendant Kesho, after his death. In the result, he dismissed the suit. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge does not divide the points for decision into any sub-heads. He states as the sole point for consideration "whether the defendant is liable for the rendition of the account to the plaintiff." As a result, we have received less assistance from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge than might have been hoped.