SURENDRA KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has bean preferred from certain orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Backergunge, on 17 February, 26 February and 1 March 1927, by which the learned Judge appointed a receiver in respect of properties which form the subject-matter of a suit now pending in his Court.

(2.) It is necessary, in order to deal with the contentions that have bean urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal, to set out a few facts. One Babu Raj Chandra Roy Chowdhury died leaving three sons and two daughters. For the purposes of this appeal we are concerned with one of his sons, namely, Babu Behary Lal Roy Chowdhury, and the two daughters named Adya Sundari and Bidya Sundari. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are two of the sons of Babu Behary Lal Roy Chowdhury and defendant 1 is another son and the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are the sons of a daughter of a predeceased son of the said Babu Behary Lal Roy Chowdhury. Defendant 2 is Bidya Sundari, herself and defendant 3 is a daughter of Adya Sundari. Behari Lal died on 10th March 1917 leaving considerable properties. He left a will which was executed shortly before his death. By this will he had made provisions for paying off certain debts, had given directions as to certain bequests and monthly legacies, enjoined the erection of two temples, made arrangements for certain pujas and ultimately left the properties moveable and immovable to plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant 1. Defendant 1 was appointed executor under the will. In 1918 defendant 1 applied for probate. This application was resisted by plaintiffs 1 and 2, and an administrator pendente lite was appointed in the course of those proceedings. Ultimately a compromise was reached between the parties in which, certain terms were agreed upon and were filed in Court. Of these terms it is necessary only to refer to those that are contained in paras 1, 7, 8 and 9 of the terms of settlement. Para 1 states: Caveats entered by Sushil Kumar Roy and Jatindra Kumar Roy (plaintiffs 1 and 2) are to be withdrawn and probate of the will to be granted to Surendra Kumar Boy (defendant 1) on his proving the will in solemn form, and thereupon the administrator pendente lite is to be discharged.

(3.) Para. 7 states: Until the debts have been paid off and provision made for payment of legacies and construction of mundirs as provided by Clause 5 hereof the estate will be managed by Surendra Kumar Roy in consultation with Sushil Kumar Roy and Jatindra Kumar Roy or their respective agents authorized in their behalf by a power-of-attorney.