HARRIES, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of Sen J. dated March 17, 1950 dismissing objections made to an account submitted by a Receiver, and passing the account so submitted.
(2.) THE respondent Mr. Bon Bihari Das was appointed a Receiver in a suit '(Ali Ismail Doodha v. Momin Bibi and ors)' by an order dated December 8, 1947. He filed an account for the period January 1, 1949 to June 30, 1949, and various objections to this account were taken by the appellants. Only one objection was pressed before the learned Judge before whom. the accounts came for approval and that, objection was, that the Receiver was not entitled to charge five per cent on the value of the corpus of the property of which he had taken possession by way of remuneration. The contention was that the Receiver was only entitled by way of remuneration to charge five per cent on all income which he collected from year to year. But the learned Judge held that upon a true construction of the order appointing Mr. Bon Bihari Das as a Receiver he was entitled by way of remuneration to five per cent of the value of the corpus of the property of which he had taken possession. The only issue in this appeal is what on the true construction of the order appointing the Receiver is the remuneration payable to him. The suit in question was an administration suit in which the estate of one Ahmed Ariff Bham was sought to be administered. The estate consisted entirely of moveable property the main items being jewellery and shares in certain companies. In the year 1947 one Mohammed Azim Mahmood Salehji was Receiver in the suit and he apparently was acting without remuneration. An application was made to remove the Receiver and to appoint some other person in his stead. The Court eventually acceded to this application and by an order of December 8,1947 Mahammed Azim Mahmood Salehji. was removed from the office of Receiver and the present respondent Mr. Bon Bihari Das was appointed in his stead. The relevant portion of the order removing the old Receiver and appointing the respondent in his stead is as follows: 'It is ordered that the said Mahommed Azim Mahmood Salehji be and he is hereby discharged from further acting as such Receiver as aforesaid of the properties mentioned in the said order dated the thirty -first day of. August one thousand nine hundred and forty ('our and that he do pass his final accounts before one of the Judges of this Court..................and it is further ordered that subject to his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court Mr. Bon Bihari Das, Barrister -at -law be and he is hereby appointed on a remuneration of five per cent on all collections to be made by him the Receiver of the said property with power to him to get in and collect the outstanding debts and claims due in respect of the said property and with all powers provided for in order XL, Rule 1 Clause (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and that he be at liberty to pay out of the funds to come to his hands the premium and all costs in respect of such security as aforesaid: And it is further ordered that the heirs of Mahmood Musaji Saleji (who was Receiver herein previous to the said outgoing Receiver) and all persons claiming under them do deliver up quiet possession of the said property together with all account books papers memoranda and writings relating thereto to the said incoming Receiver: And it is further ordered that the said incoming Receiver do take possession of the property and do collect the issues and profits thereof.: And it is further ordered that the said incoming Receiver do make an inventory of the properties of the estate in the presence of the attorneys for the parties within one month from the date of service upon him of an office copy of this order and that he do put in loose precious stones and other jewelleries if any in a sealed box in the presence of the attorneys for the parties and deposit the same in the safe custody of the Imperial Bank of India.............'
(3.) IT appears that one of the parties made an application to the Court that the Receiver should be entitled to pay the premium in respect of the security ordered out of the corpus of the estate and Sen J. who heard the application so ordered. An appeal from that order to the Appellate Bench was dismissed.;