1. Dispute concerning the correctness of a receiver's accounts as a preliminary to discharge following the determination of a property sale's invalidity. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1948 Supreme(SC) 60
Privy Council At Madras
Sir John Beaumont, Lord Macdermott, Justice Lord Simonds, JJ.
Balasubramania Raghunatha Rangaswami Singapuliar -Appellant
Versus
S.T. Nagappa Chettiar alias Chockalinga Chettiar (since deceased) now represented by S.T. Muthiah Chettiar and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 47 of 1947
Decided On : 19-07-1948
Advocates Appeared:
White, Lambert, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., P.V. Subba Row, J.M. Pringle, B. Sen, C.S. Rewcastle
White, Lambert, Hy. S.L. Polak and Co., P.V. Subba Row, J.M. Pringle, B. Sen, C.S. Rewcastle
In matters of receiver's accounts, appellate courts determine questions of principle rather than individual items of account and may accept reliable portions of accounts even if the lower court found them generally unsatisfactory.
Headnote:(A) Receiver's Accounts - Determination of accounts - In matters relating to accounts, the appellate court will determine any question of principle involved but will not consider mere items of account. (Para 3)
(B) Evaluation of Accounts - Where accounts are found to be unsatisfactory, the court is not required to discard them altogether and is entitled to accept those portions of the accounts which it deems reliable. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A receiver was appointed in a suit concerning the validity of a sale of several villages. The sale was held invalid, but the receiver was permitted to retain possession until a specified sum with interest was paid. A dispute arose regarding the settlement of the receiver's accounts to determine the final balance due. The trial court discarded the accounts as unsatisfactory and estimated a net income, whereas the appellate court adopted a method based on gross receipts, allowing for irrecoverable rents and establishment charges.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court was justified in not discarding the accounts entirely and was entitled to accept reliable portions. The allowances made for irrecoverable rents and establishment charges were considered fair and not based on any wrong principle.
Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in principle by accepting parts of the receiver's accounts instead of discarding them entirely and whether the specific allowances granted were incorrect.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in matters of accounts, the higher court focuses on principles of law rather than individual items of account. It further ruled that an appellate court has the discretion to rely on parts of the accounts it finds reliable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the trial court was justified in discarding the receiver's accounts entirely and whether the High Court erred in the principles used to determine allowances. (Para 7 )
3. The High Court correctly accepted reliable portions of the accounts and applied reasonable allowances for irrecoverable rents and establishment charges. (Para 7 , 9 )
4. Appellate courts may accept reliable parts of unsatisfactory accounts and determine fair allowances to calculate a receiver's liability. (Para 7 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 9 )
6. Can a court rely on accounts that are generally considered unsatisfactory?
Yes, a court is entitled to accept and act upon those portions of the accounts that it deems reliable, even if the accounts are not treated as conclusive. (Para 7 )
7. How can a court calculate a receiver's liability when accounts are disputed?
The court may take the gross receipts and then determine fair allowances for expenses, such as irrecoverable rents and establishment charges, to fix the amount due. (Para 7 )
Sir John Beaumont.-
This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22nd March 1945, which varied a judgment and order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore dated 15th December 1942.
[2] The only matter for consideration in the appeal is the correctness or otherwise of the accounts of a receiver as a preliminary to his discharge following upon the final determination of the dispute between the parties to the litigation.
3. It is well established that in matters relating to accounts the Board will determine any question of principle involved but will not consider mere items of account : see Practice Note in 69 IA 172. The present appeal appears to involve no question of principle.
[4] The original respondent 1, S. T. Nagappa Chettiar (hereafter referred to as "the receiver"), who has died pending the hearing of this appeal, was originally appointed receiver in the year 1924. The suit in which he was so appointed raised the question of the validity of a sale of 14 villages made by the predecessor in title of the appellant to the receiver in his private capacity. The suit resulted in its being held that the sale was invalid, but that the receiver was entitled to retain possession of the 14 villages until he had been paid a sum of Rs. 85,000 with simple interest at 9 per cent. per annum, a sum which now amounts to over Rs. 3 laks.
[5] In order to work out the final order in the suit it was necessary to take the accounts of the receiver. Various orders were made directing him to deliver accounts, and on two occasions certain of the accounts were audited. Eventually the Subordinate Judge to whom the suit had been transferred, appointed a commissioner to examine certain accounts of the receiver. The commissioner made a report to which both parties carried in exceptions.
[6] At the hearing the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the accounts delivered by the receiver were so unsatisfactory as to make it impracticable to act upon them, and he held that the receiver should be charged with a net income of Rs. 9000 per annum received from the 14 villages during a period of 18 years, making a sum of Rs. 1,62,000. Debiting that amount to the receiver the Subordinate Judge found the balance due to him at Rs. 1,48,228. The learned Judge however discussed an alternative method of fixing the amount due to the receiver, based as far as practicable on his accounts, and considered the allowances which it would be proper to make to the receiver on that basis.
[7] In appeal the learned Judges of the High Court expressed the view that the Subordinate Judge was not justified in discarding the accounts altogether, and it is argued by the appellant that the learned Judges therein were wrong in principle. But the Judges of the High Court did not hold that the accounts should be treated as conclusive, nor do they seem to have acted upon them to any great extent. Obviously they were entitled to accept so much of the accounts as they thought reliable. The method which the learned Judges of the High Court adopted for working out the liability of the receiver was to take his gross receipts at Rs. 2,72,986, a figure which they say was not in dispute, although the learned Subordinate Judge had considered that that figure should be reduced to Rs. 2,28,049, and they then considered the allowances which should be made to the receiver, this being the alternative method which had been adopted by the Subordinate Judge. The two major points upon which the Judges of the High Court differed from the view of the Subordinate Judge were, first, that whereas the Subordinate Judge had expressed the view that 10 per cent. might be allowed for rents irrecoverable, the Judges of the High Court thought, for reasons which commend themselves to their Lordships, that 30 per cent. would be a fair allowance. The second point of difference related to establishment charges upon which the Judges of the High Court took a view more
