1934 (2) TMI 22 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Suit for rendition of accounts by plaintiff against defendants.
- Allegation of defendants being agents of joint Hindu family.
- Claim for accounts of moneys received by defendants.
- Allegation of defendants not rendering accounts.
- Dispute regarding termination of agency and limitation.
- Defendants' plea of possession of documents by plaintiff.
- Relief claimed for recovery of certain receipts and counterfoils.
- Decision on appeal and costs.

Analysis:

1. The case involves an appeal by the defendants against a suit for rendition of accounts filed by the plaintiff, alleging that the defendants were agents of a joint Hindu family. The lower court decreed the suit, directing the appointment of a commissioner to take account of the defendants' liability to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought accounts for the period of defendants' employment and a decree for a specific sum.

2. The defendants argued that the agency terminated with the death of the plaintiff's father, and a new agency began with the plaintiff. They disputed liability for rent collections, claiming defendant 2 was responsible. The issue of limitation was raised, with the defendants alleging the suit was time-barred for the period before the death of the plaintiff's father.

3. The lower court framed issues based on pleadings and found defendant 1 as the principal agent for rent collection, supported by defendant 2. No oral evidence was presented, and the court relied on admissions and pleadings to pass a preliminary decree for account rendition by the defendants.

4. The defendants contended that the plaintiff withheld documents for 1921-1924, affecting their ability to render accounts. However, the court held that the defendants' liability to account was established, regardless of the plaintiff's possession of documents, citing relevant case law.

5. The court rejected the limitation plea, emphasizing that the defendants were agents of the joint Hindu family, not individuals. The agency began in 1921 and continued until 1928, aligning the suit within the limitation period. The court also dismissed the defendants' claim of rendering satisfactory accounts up to 1924.

6. The plaintiff sought recovery of specific documents, but the court found no evidence of defendants' possession and deemed it non-essential given the primary relief of account rendition. The plaintiff indicated willingness to forego physical possession if accounts were provided. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision and awarding costs to the plaintiff.