In the absence of fraud or misappropriation, the karta of a joint Mitakshara Hindu family is not liable to render a general back account of his past dealings with the family property on a suit for partition brought by a co-parcener.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal, by the plaintiff, which arises out of a suit for partition, is from the judgment of the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, First Court, Gaya, refusing her claim for rendition of accounts by defendant No. 1.

2. The sole question for determination, in the present appeal therefore, is: is defendant 1 liable to render accounts to the plaintiff?

3. In order to decide the above question, it is necessary to state the material facts having bearing on this point.

4. One Anandi Ram had four sons, namely, (1) Mohan Sahu, (2) Devi Sahu, (3) Sheochand Sahu (defendant 1), now dead, and (4) Deochand Sahu, the husband of the plaintiff. Admittedly, Deochand Sahu died on 18-2-1945. After his death, in 1945 a suit was brought by his daughters sons against the present plaintiff and the defendants, alleging that Deochand Sahu, their maternal grandfather, died in a state of separation from his other brothers, and, therefore, they had one-fourth share in the family properties. That suit, ultimately, failed, and, after the dismissal of that suit, at the appellate stage, on 20-11-1952, the present suit was filed the same year by the plaintiff for partition of the joint family properties and for rendition of accounts by defendant 1, the admitted karta and manager of the joint family of her deceased husband.

5. The suit was contested by the defendants, and their defence, regarding the plaintiffs claim for rendition of accounts by defendant 1, was that the joint family was never in possession of Rs. 40,000.00 in cash, as claimed by the plaintiff; that, as a matter of fact, at the time of the death of the plaintiffs husband, only Rs. 700/-, -- Rs. 800/-was in their tahsil (?); that the family of the defendants was very large, requiring occasional heavy expenses, and, as such, there could possibly be no accumulated funds in the hands of the defendants, particularly when their main source of income, the family cloth business, had ceased to exist long ago. The defendants, therefore, denied the liability of defendant 1 to render accounts to the plaintiff.

The Court below, on a consideration of the evidence of both sides, granted a decree for partition of all immovable properties of the family in respect of the plaintiffs one-fourth share, as claimed by her. Her claim for rendition of it counts by defendant 1, however, was refused, on the ground that the joint family had not in its possession a cash balance of Rs. 40,000/-, as alleged by the plaintiff; rather the family, at the time of partition, bad a cash balance of only Rs. 100/-, as stated by D. W, 3, defendant 2, son of defendant 1, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim rendition of accounts by defendant 1. The plaintiffs suit, accordingly, wag partly decreed.

6. On the present appeal, Mr. K.N. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, relying on a Bench decision of this Court, in Jyotibati Chaudharain V/s. Lachhmeshwar Prasad Chaudhuri, AIR 1930 Pat 260, strenuously urged that the Court below had erroneously refused the plaintiffs claim for rendition of accounts by defendant 1, because the object of taking accounts, from defendant 1, was only to discover what was the cash balance of the joint family which was liable to be partitioned and, therefore, it was argued, that, such a nature of taking accounts from the karta of the joint family was permissible in law, and, accordingly, the plaintiffs claim for rendition of accounts should also be decreed.

7. It is a settled law that, in the absence of proof of direct misapprerpriation or fraudulent and improper conversion, by the manager of a joint family estate, of the moneys of the joint family to his personal use, he is liable to account on partition only for assets which he received, not for what he ought to or might have received if the family moneys had been profitably dealt with, Therefore, in an ordinary suit for partition of joint family property, in the absence of fraud or other improper co