JUDGMENT

Henderson, J. - This application raises a question of (sic) able importance not only to the plaintiff in this ease, but also to the public. The suit was one for the administration of the estate of Kissendoyal Dhar, deceased, and on the 31st January 1901 a reference was made to the Registrar to take certain accounts and make a number of enquiries. Permission was given to raise at the reference the following issues which had been raised at the hearing of the suit, namely, (i) whether the sum of Rs. 5,000 deposited with Anderson, Wright & Co., formed part of the estate of the deceased; and (ii) whether the Government paper for Rs. 5,000 deposited with Graham & Co., formed part of the same estate. These issues arose in this way: It was said that Kissendoyal had deposited with Anderson, Wright & Co. a Government promissory note No. 110550 of the 4 per cent loan of 1842-43 for Rs. 5,000 by way of security for the father discharge of the duties of one of his sons, Kanai Lal Dhar, the father of the defendants Boistab Charan and Natobar Dharj Lal Dhar died on the 14th December 1891, leaving him surviving the two sons just mentioned, and these sons are still employed in the firm of Anderson, Wright & Co. in the place of their father Kanai Lal Dhar. The Government promissory note is said to have been renewed and to be still in the possession of Anderson, Wright & Co, as security for the defendants Boistab Charan Dhar and Natobar Dhar. It is said further that Kissendoyal deposited three other Government securities, namely, 047809 of the 41/2 per cent, loan of 1872 for Rs. 1,500, No. 009496 of the same loan for Rs. 2,000, No. 072083 of the 4 per cent, loan of 1835-36 for Rs. 1,500 with Graham & Co. for the due discharge of the duties of another, son named Subal Chandra Dhar, who was then employed there. These notes were produced by Graham & Co. and were renewed by conversion into the following, namely, 000947 of the 3 per cent, loan of 1879 for Rs. 2,000, 007182 of the same loan for Rs. 1,600 and 028569 of the, 84 per cent, loan of 1865 for Rs. 1,500, and the renewed papers remained with Graham & Co., until recently. The note 000947 of 1879 appears from a receipt, which I shall presently mention, to have been converted into No. A044703 of 1889.

2. Subal Chandra died on the 17th April 1898, leaving the defendant Makhan Lal Dhar and his brothers, who ore also defendants, and on his death the sons were brought upon the record as his representatives.

3. On the 1st July Makhan Lal Dhar, without notice to the plaintiff, applied for and obtained Letters of Administration to the estate of his father Subal Chandra, and in doing so, he included in the schedule of assets belonging to the estate of his father the Promissory Notes Nos. A0447.03 of 1889 for Rs. 2,000, 007182 for Rs. 1,500,028569 of the loan of 1,865 for Rs. 1,500, and, these were stated to be in the possession of Graham & Co.

3. On the strength of the Letters of Administration granted to him Makhan Lal Dhar took over from Graham & Co. the following Government securities for Rs. 5,000, namely, one for Rs. 2,000, No. AO44703/00947 of 1889 (the lower figures showing that there had been a conversion), 007182 for Rs. 1,500 and 028569 of 1865 for Rs. 1,500, and these notes were included in. the receipt which he gave on the 19th July 1901, as having been lodged with Graham & Co. by his late father. Subal Chandra, Dhar.

4. The present application is made under the following circumstances: On the 31st July 1901, the day on which the order was made for the reference, the plaintiff's attorneys wrote to the Secretary Treasurer of the Bank of Bengal, Public Debt Office Branch, giving notice on behalf of the plaintiff that Makhan Lal Dhat, one of the defendants, was attempting to deal with the Government securities, which have been last mentioned and they pointed out that these notes belonged to the estate of Kissendoyal Dhar having been deposited by him with Graham & Co. as already stated On the