9911796707
TMI Blog1934 (2) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defendant 1, Pt. Shankar Lal, was employed by Thakur Dhyan Pal Singh, the plaintiff's father, to manage certain zamindari properties belonging to the joint family consisting of Dhyan Pal Singh and his sons, that defendant 2, brother of defendant 1 was associated with the latter in the management of the aforesaid property, that Dhyan Pal Singh died in 1923, after which the plaintiff, who is the eldest son of Dhyan Pal Singh, became the karta, that the defendants continued to act as managers of the family property till October 1928, when they were dismissed, and that they have not rendered any account of sums received by them in their capacity as agents. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are (1) that the defendants be directed to rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was alleged by the defendants that so far as their liability, if any, arising in the life-time of Dhyan Pal Singh was concerned the plaintiff's suit is time-barred, the same having been brought more than three years from the date on which Dhyan Pal Singh died. As regards the collections that might have been made by the defendants after the death of Dhyan Pal Singh, it was alleged that all accounts were rendered to the plaintiff in 1924. As for the period from 1925 to 1928, it was pointed out that the accounts are admittedly with the plaintiff who has satisfied himself of the correctness of the entries therein made. The defendants complained that the plaintiff was in possession of all the account books and connected papers for the year 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t being confronted with certain documents, that he was entrusted with the duty of collecting rent, and that defendant 2 was associated with him in that work. On this finding the learned Subordinate Judge was in our view justified in passing a preliminary decree directing the defendants to render an account of what they received in course of their employment as agents on behalf of the plaintiff's family. 4. The learned advocate for the appellants strongly urged that the lower Court should have adjudicated on the question raised by the written statement, namely, that the documents for the year 1921 to 1924, and other papers were in possession of the plaintiff, who was deliberately suppressing them, and that if the finding of the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts' plea of limitation that the plaintiff's claim for rendition of accounts in respect of the years 1921 to 1923 is barred by limitation, we are of opinion that it has no force. The plea rests on the assumption that there were two successive contracts of agency, the first being entered into between Dhyan Pal Singh and the defendants, and the second by the present plaintiff and the defendants. It is argued that so far as the first contract is concerned it terminated on the death of Dhyan Pal Singh. Reference is made in this connexion to Section 201, Contract Act. The obvious fallacy on which this contention rests lies in the assumption that the contract was entered into by Dhyan Pal Singh as an individual. 6. It is not disputed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family In this view the defendants were agents not of Dhyan Pal Singh or of the plaintiff acting individually but of the joint Hindu family of which they were successively the managers, and that the defendant's employment did not terminate with the death of Dhyan Pal Singh and again commence when the plaintiff took over; charge of the family business. For the purposes of limitation the agency began' in 1921 when the defendants were first employed, and terminated in 1928, when they were dismissed. The suit is admittedly within time if limitation is counted from 1928. Another contention put forward on behalf of the appellants is that the account for 1924 was submitted to the plaintiff who examined it and satisfied himself of the corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 13(b). The learned Subordinate Judge held in answering issue 5 that there was no evidence that the defendants were in possession of the documents claimed by the plaintiff. The learned Judge however expressed the opinion that as the defendants were liable to render account it does not matter to the plaintiff that the defendants were in possession of the documents claimed by him. It is not clear whether the learned Subordinate Judge intended to refuse the relief mentioned in para. 13(b) of the plaint. The decree appealed from has not however granted that relief which should therefore be considered to have been refused. We agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the question is not of first rate importance having regard to the principa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
