The main legal point established in the judgment is that executors have a duty to administer the estate prudently and in accordance with the law, and the court has the power to intervene to protect the interests of creditors and other stakeholders in cases of potential insolvency.

JUDGMENT

Rankin, C.J. - Two appeals are before us-Nos. 22 and 24 of 1932. They are brought respectively by Lala Gobardhandas and Lala Dinanath, two persons, who, with other three, are the executors of the will of one Raghumull Khandelwal, who died on 5th September 1926, probate being taken of his will on 10th January 1927. Raghumall appears to have died a wealthy man and, by the provisions of his will, he, first of all, directed that the residue of his property should go to certain persons. The two appellants before us were his nephews and they were to get an equal one-fourth share, his wife was to get another and his daughter, married to one Hansraj, was to get another. They were to be entitled to carry on the business in equal shares and were to be entitled to the goodwill and so forth in equal shares, There were various legacies and five persons were appointed executors and trustees-the two appellants, Hansraj, who had married his daughter, one Gopaldas Modi, who afterwards became the plaintiff in this suit, and the widow. These persons were to act by majority, they were to,act by resolutions passed at meetings or by resolutions passed by circulation. The testator having died in September 1926, we find that trouble first began when the plaint in the present suit was brought on 29th July 1929, the plaintiff being Gopaldas Modi, one of the executors. The plaint asks for administration of the estate and the grounds, upon which the administration is asked for, are not only that the executors are quarrelling among themselves and not only that the administration of the estate is not proceeding, but that the estate is getting into difficulties, being unable to meet the claims on it and that the debts and liabilities are not being dealt with.

2. Among other reasons stated in the plaint of July 1929, one is that the executors-the defendants Dinanath and Gobardhandas-are wrongfully withdrawing large sums of money from the estate claiming to be entitled thereto as residuary legatees and to that allegation the appellant Dinanath says that he has not wrongfully withdrawn any money, but that he has taken small loans from the estate with the consent and approval of the plaintiff and his other co-executors and executrix. The appellant Gobardhandas, in his written statement, gives a traverse in which he denies that he ever wrongfully withdrew any money from the estate. Thereafter there was a, petition brought for the appointment of a receiver and the first order that was made on that matter was an order by consent. The application was by the widow, Srimati Bhagabati Debee, who was one of the defendants in the suit, and she made various charges, the gist of which is to be found for the present purpose in para. 27 of her petition. She said that Dinanath in collusion with Gobardhandas-although the suit was still pending and the debts and legacies had not been paid-had borrowed money in the name and on behalf of the estate at Delhi and had withdrawn a lakh of rupees out of the estate and that Gobardhandas had withdrawn a sum of about Rs. 60,000, that they had not repaid the moneys and that the estate was m a bad condition. So she was alleging that, pending the actual proceedings in the suit for administration, the two appellants had been helping themselves to the money of the estate by means of the Delhi firm. It may here be explained that, by a resolution of the executors, Gobardhandas, who lived at Delhi, was made responsible for the Cawnpore branch-Dinanath being responsible for the Delhi branch. As a result of that application, an order was made by consent, by which Hansraj who, as one may put it, was on the side of the plaintiff, and Dinanath were appointed joint receivers and the order gave these receivers liberty to divide the properties amongst the residuary legatees, after providing and securing payment for the liabilities of the estate and payment of general and pecuniary legacies; that order was dated 24th March 1931, and, shortly afte