The manager of a joint family estate is liable to account on partition only for assets which he has received, not for what he ought or might have received if the family money had been profitably dealt with.

Tarkeshwar Nath, J.

1. This appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for partition of the one-fifth share belonging to the plaintiff. Apart from this relief, the plaintiff wanted a decree for rendition of accounts from the defendants.

2. The plaintiffs case, in short, was that one Dinanath Gorai had five sons, namely, Satish, Amulaya, Ramratan, Gour and Gokul. The first-four sons are defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, in this action. The plaintiff is the widow of the fifth son Gokul. Dinanath died on the 3rd of March, 1949, leaving his widow Makhanmani. Dinanath died in a State of jointers with the defendants and his other son Gokul with the result that each son got one-sixth share and the widow as well got one-sixth share. Gokul, husband of the plaintiff, died on the 30th of June 1950. Subsequently, Makhanmani also died on the 7th of September 1953, and after her death her share devolved on the defendants and the plaintiff with the result that the plaintiff got one-fifth share in the properties belonging to this family. The plaintiff, further asserted that the defendants were misappropriating the joint family property and they did not give her due share, to these circumstances she filed the suit giving rise to this appeal on the 22nd August 1956 for partition in respect of the properties described in the various schedules of the plaint.

3. The case of the defendants, on the other hand, was that the family was not joint and Dinanath was the sole and exclusive owner of the properties during his lifetime. The only income from the properties was royalty from coal lands and paddy from agricultural lands. The royalty received from the coal lands had to be spent in paying the dues of the superior landlords. After the death of Dinanath on the 3rd of March 1949 all his sons separated from one another and occupied separate, portions of the residential houses. The defendants had separate business and they acquired properties separately with which the plaintiff had no concern. According to them, the plaintiffs husband died before the death of Makhanmani with the result that Makhanmanis one-sixth share was inherited by the defendants alone to the exclusion of the plaintiff, and in this manner their contention was that in any event the plaintiff had only one-sixth share and not one-fifth. They further asserted that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for rendition of accounts inasmuch as she failed to make out a case of misappropriation and fraud.

4. In view of these pleadings the main issue in the case was as to whether the plaintiff had one-fifth store and which properties, were liable to partition. There was another issue as to whether there was partition of moveables belonging to Dinanath and his widow inasmuch the defendants had asserted that there was a partition of the moveables.

5. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had one-fifth share and there was no partition of the imoveables. He, however, passed no decree with regard to the partition of moveables described in Schedule 1 of the plaint, as their existence was not proved and apart from that he excluded items 3 and 5 of Schedule 4 from partition on the same ground. He further held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for accounts since the date of death of Dinanath which occurred on the 3rd of March 1949. In view of these conclusions he decreed the suit in part for partition of the plaintiffs one-fifth share of the family property as mentioned in the schedules of the plaint except Schedule 1 and items 3 and 5 of Schedule 4. The defendants were directed to put the plaintiff in separate possession of the said share within a month of the order failing which the plaintiff was entitled to get her share demarcated by metes and bounds through the aid of a pleader commissioner. The defendants were further directed to render accounts before a pleader commissioner appointed by the Court and they had to pay Rs. 150.00 per month to the plaintiff till