BARODA KANTA SARKAR Vs. RASHMANI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances of the litigation which has culminated in the present proceedings for the adjustment of the accounts of a Receiver, are fully narrated in the previous judgment of this Court, Mohini Mohan Patra v. Baruda Kanta Sarkar 12 Ind. Cas. 78C : 14 C.L.J. 445 and need not be recited here. This Court held on that occasion that the Receiver had not fully rendered his accounts and appointed Babu Haradhan Nav, a Vakil of this Court, to take the accounts. The Commissioner commenced the work, but resigned on the ground of ill-health, whereupon the Court appointed Babu Ashutosh Mukerji, another Vakil of this Court, to take the accounts, with directions to submit his report to the Subordinate Judge of the 24- Perganahs, who had seizin of the partition suit in the course of which the Receiver had been appointed. Before the Commissioner, the proceedings were much protracted, as every single item was fought out by the parties with unusual pertinacity, irrespective of the amount in controversy. The result was that the Commissioner submitted a full report in which he dealt with each disputed point with thereupon filed a memorandum of exceptions in which he not only questioned the correctness of the conclusions of the; Commissioner, but imputed to him grave misconduct. The Subordinate Judge did not investigate the matter on the merits, but reported to this Court that he felt embarrassed as the report of the Commissioner a raised a question as to the propriety of the conduct of a gentleman, who need? not be named here and who had been intimately known to the Subordinate Judge ii for many years. It transpired on inquiry at the same time that there was no other senior officer available in the District who could conveniently take up the case for early e disposal. The Court was consequently called upon to determine what course should be adopted, in the best interests of the parties for the speedy determination of the questions in issue, and this Bench was specially constituted by the Chief Justice to deal with the matter. After anxious consideration of all the circumstances of the case, we decided to transfer the proceedings for the adjustment of the accounts of the Receiver from the Court of the Subordinate Judge to this Court, to be tried in the exercise of our extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. The order was accordingly made, and the proceedings are now before us for final disposal. In this Court, the learned Counsel for the Receiver, who has put the case before us with great fairness and clearness, has unreservedly withdrawn the imputations made against the Commissioner and has confined himself to such items in the accounts as really call for consideration. We now proceed to examine the exceptions to the report in the order in which they have been placed before us.

(2.) The first group of items to which exception is taken by the Receiver conies under the head of maintenance. The Commissioner has disallowed several items which in the aggregate amount to Rs. 388-8-0 and may be arranged in two classes first, the sums paid to one of the plaintiffs, Mohini Mohan Patra, who was at the time an infant; and, secondly, a sum of Rs. 200 which was raised by way of loan by the Receiver on his personal undertaking under somewhat exceptional circumstances.

(3.) As regards the items included in the first class, it has been argued on behalf of the Receiver that the Receipts granted by Mohini Mohan Patra constitute a valid, discharge, but this contention cannot possibly succeed. Mohini Mohan Patra was an infant at the time these sums are alleged to have been paid into his hands. His natural guardian was his mother who was acting as his next friend for the purposes of the suit. The Court had sanctioned specific sums for the maintenance of the mother and her two sons, namely, Rs. 75 for the mother and Rs. 50 for each of her sons. The sums now in controversy are not included in the sanctioned amounts of monthly allowances. It is not necessary for us to determine whether, under any circumstances, receipts granted by an infant for payments made to him by the Receiver in excess of the amount sanctioned by the Court, are valid discharges. In the present case, it has not been shown that these sums were applied for the benefit of the infant; consequently, it is impossible for us to accede to the contention that Mohini Mohan Patra or his representative is liable to be charged with the sums named.