P C LALL CHOUDHURY Vs. SAMOJIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases arise out of Title Suits Nos. 20 of 1933 and 28, 29 and 30 of 1931 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Parnea relating to certain purchases of patni property made by Raja P.C. Lall Choudhury. The plaintiffs patnidars sought to get the sales set aside. The suits were compromised, and, under the terms of the compromise, a receiver, Mr. S.A. Mojib, a pleader, was appointed to take charge of the suit properties. It was agreed that on the plaintiffs paying certain amounts to the Raja Sahib by a certain date, the sales of the patni property would be set aside, and, failing payment, as specified in the compromise, the sales would stand confirmed and the plaintiffs would have no right to claim a refund of payments, if any, made by them in pursuance of the compromise. All the plaintiffs failed to make due payment as required, with the result that the sales of the patni property stood confirmed. The cases before us relate to the passing of the accounts of the pleader receiver. These accounts were checked by a Commissioner appointed by the Court. The Commissioner recommended that certain items appearing in the receiver's account should be disallowed. The accounts were, however, passed by the Subordinate Judge. Hence the Raja Sahib has come to this Court. As he was not certain whether an appeal lay, he has filed the petitions in revision by way of precaution.

(2.) The items challenged will be detailed by me below. There is, first of all, what is called tahrir, a charge made by the estate amlas and realised by them from the tenants at the time of realising rents and granting receipts therefor. Apparently following the custom of the estate, these amounts appear in the estate accounts; but the money is kept by the estate amlas. During the period that the receiver was in charge, the amount realised was as 4623 and odd. The Raja Sahib claims that the whole amount should be paid to him as an income of the estate. The Subordinate Judge took the view that although it appears in the estate accounts, it is not an income of the estate but is merely an extra remuneration of the estate staff.

(3.) Item 2 is Rs. 6158 being the amount of arrears of rent due, which has beoome barred owing to the omission of the receiver to file suits for their recovery. In connection with the amounts, the receiver had applied to the Court for instructions as to whether suits should be filed, and the Court had directed him to proceed according to his own discretion. The Subordinate-Judge apparently agreeing with the Commissioner, held that the discretion had been properly exercised.