Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Appeals Nos. 106 and 107 of 1911.

Judges

Sir John Wallis
C. J.
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

Acts

Section 92 of Probate and Administration Act, V of 1881,
section 50 of the Probate and Administration Act
section 4 of the Probate and Administration Act,
section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure
SECTION 92 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
Article 132 of the Limitation Act.
Section 21 of the Trustees Act, (56
art. 120 of the Limitation Act.
Administration Act, V of 1881.
Hindu Wills Act, XXI of 1870

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Two appeals arise from judgment in two suits tried together. The principal factual matrix concerns the will of one Nagapillai and the executorships thereunder. The plaintiff (Chidambara Mudaliar), one of the executors, had obtained probate and administered the estate for a period. The 1st defendant (the deceased's son), who later attained majority, petitioned for the issue of a joint probate on the ground that the plaintiff had not filed proper accounts. A commissioner was appointed; his report (Exhibit XI) stated that the plaintiff had not kept proper accounts and was unfit to continue as executor.

Subsequently the plaintiff and the 1st defendant presented a petition of compromise (Exhibit XIII/PP) by which it was agreed that the 1st defendant would accept the plaintiff's accounts showing Rs. 6,686 due and would execute a mortgage of estate property for that amount in favor of certain nominees of the plaintiff; the plaintiff would renounce executorship and hand over certain articles. The mortgage (Exhibit LL) was executed on 14 April 1902 and the compromise petition was accepted by the District Court on 22 April 1902.

One suit was by the plaintiff seeking recovery on the mortgage; the other (a connected suit) was instituted under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of trustees (executor-trustees), for an account of the estate and for settling a scheme. The Subordinate Judge held that the mortgage was not binding on the estate and made various findings on the accounts; the present appeals challenge those conclusions and the quantum found in the accounting.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the mortgage executed by the 1st defendant (on 14 April 1902) in favour of nominees of the plaintiff is binding on the estate or trust.
Whether one executor can lawfully compromise or compound the claim of his co-executor (and whether such a compromise, if allowed, must be bona fide and for the benefit of the estate).
Whether the fact that probate had been taken out by one executor prevents a co-executor from acting as representative of the deceased prior to recognition by the court (issues arising under Section 82, and related provisions, of the Probate and Administration Act, V of 1881).
Whether a plaintiff-executor or executor-creditor has a charge on trust property or only a right of retainer and whether claims are barred by limitation (Article 120 / Article 132 of the Limitation Act and related jurisprudence).
In a suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure to remove trustees and take accounts, whether a claim barred by limitation may nevertheless be adjusted in the accounting and a decree entered for sums found due by way of equitable adjustment.

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff (executor who had obtained probate)

It was unnecessary but proper for the plaintiff to obtain probate and he administered the estate under the grant for a time.
Implicit in submissions was a reliance on the execution of the mortgage and the court's acceptance of the compromise petition as validating the arrangement (the text records the plaintiff's acts rather than a detailed legal argument in his favour).

Arguments advanced on behalf of the 1st defendant (co-executor) and supporting counsel

Mr. S. Sreenevasa Aiyangar argued that an executor is not competent to compromise the claim of his co-executor and that the mortgage is thereby invalid.
Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar relied upon Kekewich, J.'s decision in In re Houghton to contend that a bona fide composition between co-executors should stand on the same footing as a composition with a stranger.
Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar argued that because the plaintiff alone had taken out probate, Section 82 of the Probate and Administration Act prevented the 1st defendant from acting as representative of the deceased until recognized by the court, and therefore the mortgage dated 14 April 1902 (executed before the court acceptance) was ultra vires.
In the connected appeal, counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had a charge on the property and could enforce it under Article 132 of the Limitation Act; opposing counsel relied on Peary Mohun Mukerjee v. Narendra Nath Mukerjee and Article 120 to argue the claim was barred after six years.

Arguments recorded on limitation and accounting in the section 92 suit

It was contended that the appellant's substantive remedy to sue for monies was barred by limitation, and thus he could not obtain further relief in the section 92 proceeding.
In reply, it was argued (and supported by judicial reasoning in the opinion) that though the right to sue may be barred, the right to account remains and, in equity, liabilities discovered in an account taken under section 92 can be adjusted so that a trustee cannot escape payment simply because his personal remedy is time-barred.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Cook v. Collingridge	Authority cited concerning the propriety of settlements/compromises between trustees/executors.	Referred to as part of authorities that suggest doubt as to whether an executor can enter into a compromise with a co-executor.
De Cardova v. De Cardova	Authority cautioning about settlements between trustees; cited as opposing the view that co-executors may freely compound claims.	Relied on to support the proposition that such settlements are viewed with suspicion and may be invalid.
In re Fish	Expressed strong language in the Court of Appeal about settlements between trustees.	Used to underline the court's scepticism about enforceability of the compromise between co-executors in the present case.
In re Houghton (Kekewich, J.)	Held that a co-executor may, in principle, enter into a bona fide compromise of a co-executor's claim (position taken by Kekewich, J.).	The opinion notes this decision but treats it as not binding and as an approach requiring the compromise to be bona fide; the court distinguished it and rejected its broader proposition.
In re New; In re Leavers; In re Morley	Cases concerning the Court of Chancery's jurisdiction to sanction trustee transactions beyond trust powers but for the benefit of cestuis.	The opinion records that the decision in In re Houghton relied on these authorities, but a judge in the present case found they did not support Kekewich J.'s broader view.
Peary Mohun Mukerjee v. Narendra Nath Mukerjee	Established that an executor-creditor's claim is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act and is therefore subject to a six-year limitation; also used for the proposition that an executor has only a right of retainer and no equitable charge on properties not in his possession.	Relied upon to hold that the plaintiff had no charge on the estate and that such claims are governed by Article 120 and thus can be barred by limitation.
Trevor v. Hutchins; In re Rhoades; Pulman v. Meadows	Authorities stating that where an executor has the estate in his possession he may claim a right of retainer or a lien.	Noted to explain the limited circumstances in which an executor-creditor may have a lien; the court found those circumstances were not present here.
In re Pawley and London and Provincial Bank	Held that the estate vests in all executors and not only in those who have proved the will or acted in administration.	Referenced in argument about whether Section 82 prevented a co-executor from acting; the court discussed this authority but ultimately rejected the construction that would bar a co-executor simply because another had taken probate.
Nursing Doyal v. Hurryhur Saha	Quoted for the proposition that if a creditor had a lien on goods on a general account he could hold goods for a debt the recovery of which was barred by the Limitation Act.	Used analogically to support the view that equitable rights arising in an account can survive a limitation defence to a pure action for money.
Mclaren v. Public Trustee, In re Robinson	Authority in which, although a remedy by suit was held barred by limitation, the court noted that in an administration action the bar might be of no avail and that right to account can defeat limitation in the context of administration.	Applied by the court as analogous authority to hold that, in an account under section 92, limitation does not necessarily preclude equitable adjustment and recovery in the accounting process.
Kandasamy Chetty v. Annamalai Chetty	Authority precluding agitation of a question in partial bar of a claim (used for the proposition that plaintiffs had not objected to part of the decree).	Invoked to support the proposition that the plaintiffs' failure to object to part of the decree precluded the respondent's contrary contention.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a stepwise analysis, addressing statutory provisions, the factual setting, the bona fides of the compromise and the effect of limitation on claims:

The Subordinate Judge's finding that the mortgage was not binding was endorsed. The court examined one procedural objection — that the mortgage was executed after probate had been granted to the plaintiff and before probate had been granted to the 1st defendant — and analysed Section 82 of the Probate and Administration Act (prohibiting anyone other than the grantee of probate from acting as representative until the probate is recalled or revoked). The court discussed whether Section 82 should apply to Hindus and concluded that the section applies broadly but then proceeded to examine a more decisive objection.
The court placed primary weight on the commissioner’s report (Exhibit XI), which found that the plaintiff had not kept proper accounts and that his management had been fraudulent. In light of that report — which the 1st defendant had procured — the court concluded that the compromise (under which the plaintiff's alleged claim of Rs. 6,686 was to be secured by mortgage and the plaintiff would renounce executorship) could not be regarded as a bona fide compromise made in the interests of the estate. Rather, it appeared to the court to be a transaction primarily designed to effect the plaintiff's withdrawal so as to benefit the 1st defendant.
The court considered the legal question whether an executor can enter into a compromise with a co-executor. While Kekewich, J. in In re Houghton had taken the view that a bona fide composition is permissible, other authorities (De Cordova v. De Cardova, Cook v. Collingridge, In re Fish) were cited to show the strong reluctance of courts to uphold such settlements. The court concluded that the Probate and Administration Act contains no express provision authorising one executor to compound the claim of his co-executor and that the compromise in this case was neither bona fide nor for the benefit of the estate.
The court questioned the district court's jurisdiction to sanction the compromise on a petition for grant of probate to an additional executor, particularly where the compromise imposed a heavy burden on the estate and the true facts (notably the commissioner’s adverse report) may not have been placed before the District Judge when he “accepted and ordered in terms of the petition.”
On the question of remedies and limitation, the court held that an executor-creditor's remedy to sue for sums due is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act (six-year period) and that an executor in general has only a right of retainer and not a general equitable charge on trust property not in his possession. Relying on Peary Mohun Mukerjee, the court found that the claim for a charge on the estate could not be sustained and was in any event barred by limitation.
Concerning the connected section 92 suit (removal and accounting), the court reasoned that although the appellant's right to sue for his claim in a standalone action might be time-barred, the equitable right to have an account taken remains. It would be inappropriate to remove a trustee without providing for payment to him in the accounting if monies were in fact due; accordingly, sums found due on taking the account could be decreed notwithstanding that a separate action for the money would have been barred.
On the detailed account items, the court generally affirmed the Subordinate Judge's findings (including fixation of average income, disallowance of some mismanagement claims, treatment of barred debts, rate of interest and doctor's bill) but allowed certain items for amounts spent in recovery actions and for a portrait expense, while disallowing other claims where the appellant was found negligent or the facts did not support recovery.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

- On the mortgage suit: DISMISSED. The court held that the mortgage executed by the 1st defendant is not binding on the estate because (a) the compromise was not bona fide and (b) one executor cannot lawfully, under the Probate and Administration Act as interpreted by the court in this case, compound the claim of his co-executor in a way that imposes a heavy burden on the estate.

- On the connected suit under section 92 (account and removal): APPEAL DISMISSED and the decree of the Subordinate Judge was modified in part (certain items were allowed in favour of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to payment out of the corpus of the trust estate). Appeal No. 106 was dismissed; Appeal No. 107 was dismissed subject to the modifications described.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the plaintiff's suit on the mortgage fails and the mortgage will not operate as a charge on the trust estate; the plaintiff cannot rely on the compromise to secure his alleged claim of Rs. 6,686.
In the accounting proceedings under section 92, the appellant (the 1st defendant in the connected appeal) is entitled to equitable adjustments discovered in the account despite the fact that a separate action for those monies would have been barred by limitation; specific items were allowed and will be paid from the corpus.
The court emphasised caution about compromising claims between co-executors and required bona fides and benefit to the estate; in this instance the compromise failed those tests.
No assertion is made in the opinion that a new general legal precedent was being laid down beyond these holdings; the court primarily applied established authorities and equitable principles to the facts before it and reversed or affirmed particular conclusions of the Subordinate Judge accordingly.

Final procedural disposition: The mortgage suit and related appeal were dismissed with costs; the memorandum of objections was dismissed with costs; the account rules and decree in the connected suit were upheld and modified as indicated, with parties to bear their costs in the modified appeal.

Show full summary ...

A. C. Chidambara Mudaliar v. N. Krishnasami Pillay

Sir John Wallis, C.J — These are appeals from a judgment in two suits which were tried together. One was a suit by Chidambara Mudaliar, one of the executors of the deceased Nagapillai on a mortgage for Rs. 6500, executed by the 1st defendant, another of the executors, in favour of four persons, who it is alleged transferred it to the plaintiff. The mortgage, as found by the Subordinate Judge, was really executed by the 1st defendant, as executor of the deceased under his will Exhibit OO, benami for the plaintiff in the following circumstances. The plaintiff, though it was unnecessary for him to do so, thought proper to obtain probate of the will, Exhibit EE, from the District Court of Trichinopoly and for some time administered the estate under the grant. In January 1901 the 1st defendant, the son of the deceased, who had come of age, presented a petition, C. M. P. No. 83 of 1901, for the issue of probate to him along with the plaintiff, and alleged therein that the plaintiff had failed to file in Court within one year the accounts required of him as executor under the Probate and Administration Act, V of 1881. The plaintiff then filed certain accounts, which were referred to a commissioner by an order made on the above petition, under what provision of law does not appear, as the accounts required by the Probate and Administration Act are filed merely for the information of all concerned and to enable them to take proceedings against the executor if the occasion calls for it. On the 8th July 1901 the commissioner presented a report, Exhibit XI, in which he stated that the plaintiff had not kept proper accounts, that his management had been fraudulent, and that he was unfit to continue as executor. On the 11th February 1902, the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, as petitioner and counter petitioner in C. M. P. No. 83 of 1903 already mentioned, presented a petition of compromise, Exhibit XIII, stating that it had been agreed that the 1st defendant should accept the plaintiff's accounts showing Rs. 6686 as due to him from the estate, and should execute a mortgage of the estate for that amount in the plaintiff's favour, and that the plaintiff should renounce the executorship and hand over certain articles. The mortgage, Exhibit LL, which is that now sued on, was executed by the 1st defendant on 14th April 1902, and on 22nd April 1902 the parties presented a further petition, Exhibit PP, stating that the mortgage had been executed and that the plaintiff was willing to renounce the executorship and to comply with the other terms mentioned in the petition and praying the Court to pass orders in accordance with the compromise. On this the Court passed the following order: “Accepted and ordered in terms of the petition.”

The Subordinate Judge has held, in my opinion rightly, that this mortgage is not binding on the estate. One objection taken is that it was executed after the grant of probate to the plaintiff and before the grant to the 1st defendant. Now Sect. 82 of the Act provides that after a grant of probate no other than the person to whom the same shall have been granted shall have power to act as representative of the deceased until such probate is recalled, or revoked; and it is contended that, though it was not obligatory on the executors of the will to have taken out probate, yet one of them having done so, the terms of the section expressly prohibit the other executor, to whom probate had not been granted, from acting as the representative of the deceased and that the fact of probate having been subsequently granted to such executor is not sufficient by virtue of Section 12 to validate acts done by him in express disobedience to Section 82. The Act does not say that this section is only to apply to cases governed by the Hindu Wills Act, XXI of 1870 but (Section 2) that Chapters 2 to 13, which include this section, are to apply to every Hindu, and I do not think it is open to us to refuse to apply the provisions of the section on grounds of real or supposed inconvenience. On the other hand it may be said that the balance of convenience is in favour of the section being applicable. There is, however, a more serious objection to the mortgage. In the face of the commissioner's report, Exhibit XI which must have been known to the 1st defendant, as it was obtained at his instance, a compromise by which the plaintiff's claim against the estate for Rs. 6686 cannot be said to have been entered into bona fide in the interests of the estate and would appear to have been entered into by the 1st defendant mainly with the object of getting the plaintiff to withdraw in his favour from the office of executor. It appears not to be free from doubt whether an executor can enter into a compromise with his co-executor at all. See Cook v. Collingridge and De Cardova v. De Cardova and the strong language of the Court of Appeal in In re Fish, as to such settlements between trustees. Assuming, however, that a co-executor has such a power, as held by Kekewich, J., in In re Houghton, it is essential that the compromise should be a bona fide one, and I do not think that the compromise above referred to can be considered to be a bona fide one, or in any way binding upon the estate. As regards the order made by the District Judge accepting the compromise, it does not appear that the true facts were then brought to his notice, or how on a petition for the grant of probate to an additional executor, he had jurisdiction to sanction a compromise between two executors imposing a heavy burden on the estate. It was then contended that the plaintiff was entitled to a charge on the estate for the sums found due to him in the account taken in the suit. An executor, however, has only aright of retainer and no charge on properties not in his possession, which at one time formed part of the estate. Peary Mohun Mukerjee v. Narendra Nath Mukerjee. This case is also authority for the position that such a claim by a plaintiff is governed by Art. 120 and is therefore barred. I think that the Subordinate Judge should have dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the mortgage and that it must now be dismissed and his appeal must be dismissed with costs throughout. The amount allowed in that suit will be allowed in the account taken in the other suit and included in that decree.

The connected suit was instituted under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, with the requisite permission, for the removal of the defendant, the plaintiff in the other suit, from the position of trustee of the charities created by the will, and also prayed for an account against him which was ordered. The account was taken in the connected suit which was tried with this suit, with the result that a sum of over Rs. 300 was found due to the defendant, and a decree for that amount was given him in the connected suit. There is no appeal against that decree, but the appellant contends that a large sum ought to have been found due to him and it is urged in reply that, as his claim against the trust is barred by limitation, no decree can be given to him in the suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amount found due to him on taking the account. We are unable to agree with this contention. Though the appellant's right to sue is barred, his claim is otherwise unaffected, and it would not be right to remove him from the office of trustee without providing for payment to him, in the account which has been taken as between him and the trust, at the instance of the plaintiffs, more especially as in the connected suit we have held that the mortgage by which he sought to secure his claim against the estate is not binding on it. There is, moreover, no reason why a decree for the amount found due should not be given against the estate. As regards the particular items I agree with the judgment about to be delivered. No order as to costs.

The memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs.

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.—One Nagapillai made a will on the 4th January 1897 and died two days after. The plaintiff in this case was appointed one of the executors. The will provided that the 1st defendant, who was then a minor, should be co-executor, after coming of age, with the plaintiff. The testator, after providing for certain legacies, directed the founding of a feeding house. Immediately after his death the genuineness of the will was questioned. The plaintiff applied for probate in the District Court of Trichinopoly. It was opposed, but he succeeded in obtaining an order for its grant in July 1897. There was an appeal against the order to the High Court. The probate was actually granted to him only in November 1899.

The first defendant attained majority in 1897 and in January 1901, he applied for the issue of a joint probate to himself and the plaintiff in supercession of the one granted to the plaintiff (ZZ) One of the grounds for recalling the original grant is contained in paragraph 8 of the petition, which alleged that the plaintiff had not rendered any account of his administration. This petition was opposed by the plaintiff (AAA). The District Judge directed the plaintiff to furnish a detailed account of the estate. On this being done, the 1st defendant was permitted to state his objections. A Commissioner was afterwards appointed to examine the accounts. His report is Exhibit XI, dated the 8th July 1901. This was not favourable to the plaintiff. While its consideration was pending before the District Judge, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant filed a Razinamah (Exhibit PP) in Court. This was accepted by the District Judge on the 22nd April 1902. It was agreed to in this compromise that certain articles in the possession of the plaintiff should be handed over to the 1st defendant; that the plaintiff should renounce his rights to the joint-executorship with the 1st defendant, and that in consideration of these terms and of the allegation that the plaintiff had spent monies on behalf of the estate, a mortgage on the trust property should be executed by the 1st defendant in favour of certain nominees of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 6686. The deed of mortgage was actually executed on the 14th April 1902, eight days prior to the acceptance of the compromise by the Court. See Ex. LL.

Plaintiff now sues on this mortgage to recover from the 1st defendant personally and on the liability of the mortgaged trust properties, the amount due to him. The other defendants are the widow, the daughter's sons, and the alienees of some of the mortgaged properties. The 1st defendant impeaches the mortgage on various grounds. The principal question for decision in this appeal is whether the mortgage is binding on the trust.

Mr. S. Sreenevasa Aiyangar argued that an executor is not competent to compromise the claim of his co-executor and that the mortgage is invalid upon that ground. Mr. Ahantakrishna Aiyar relied upon the decision of Kekewich, J. in In re Houghton and argued that a bona fide composition of the claim of a co-executor stands on the same footing as that of a stranger. This case has neither been followed, nor cited with approval in any of the subsequent cases. The learned Judge bases his conclusion upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in In re New, In re Leavers and In re Morley. I have read that case carefully and I do not find any support for the proposition laid down by Kekewich J., in that case. There the point argued related to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to sanction transactions entered into by trustees which were beyond the powers conferred by the deed of trust, but which were for the obvious advantage of the cestui que trust. Lord Justice Romer, says at page 545: “Of course the jurisdiction is one to be exercised with great caution, and the Court will take care not to strain its powers. It is impossible, and no attempt ought to be made, to state or define all the circumstances under which, or the extent to which the Court will exercise the jurisdiction; but it need scarcely be said that the Court will not be justified in sanctioning every act desired by trustees and beneficiaries, merely because it may appear beneficial to the estate; and certainly the Court will not be disposed to sanction transactions of a speculative or risky character. But each case brought before the court must be considered and dealt with according to its special circumstances.” I do not think this statement of the law supports the view of the learned judge. On the other hand, the observations of Sir Barnes Peacock in De Cordova v. De Cardova, are distinctly against his view. Moreover, the decision of Kekewich, J., was under Section 21 of the Trustees Act, (56 and 57 Vict., c. 53) of 1893, and the pronouncement regarding common law rights is only an obiter dictum. There is nothing in Section 92 of Probate and Administration Act, V of 1881, to enable an executor to compromise the claim of the co-executors. Chapter VI, dealing with the powers of an executor, is silent on the question. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that it is not competent under the Act to one executor to compound the claim of his co-executor. Further, in this case, the compromise cannot be said to have been entered into bond fide. I have referred to the circumstances which existed at the time of the Razinamah, and they show that the 1st defendant was anxious to secure powers to himself, and that the plaintiff wanted to get money. Neither of them seems to have had the interests of the trust in their minds. Consequently, if an application were made to a court to sanction the arrangement, it would have been rejected. The acceptance by the District Judge of the compromise should not be construed as giving his sanction for it.

Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar also argued that as probate was taken out by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant had no status as executor until he was recognized as such by the order of the Court on the 22nd April 1902, and that the mortgage of the 14th April was ultra vires of his powers. Under section 4 of the Probate and Administration Act, the property of the testator vests in the executors. It was pointed out in In re Pawley and London and Provincial Bank, that the estate of the deceased vests in all the executors and not only in those who have proved the will or acted in the administration of the estate. Further it is settled law that it is not incumbent on a Hindu executor to obtain probate before acting, although there is nothing to prevent him from taking out probate. Under these circumstances, I cannot agree that section 82 of the Act is a bar to the 1st defendant acting as representative of the deceased, because the plaintiff had alone obtained probate of the will. Section 92, which empowers only persons who have proved the will or taken out administration to act on behalf of all the executors should be confined to cases where probate is compulsory before dealing with the property. The result of acceding to the contention of Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar will be this—whereas if no probate had been taken, every Hindu executor can deal with the property of the deceased, the fact that one of them obtains a probate will compel the executor that has not joined in the original application to apply himself to the court, if he wants to exercise the powers vested in him. I do not think the language of sections 82 and 92 of the Probate and Administration Act compels us to give our sanction to such an anamolous position.

On the view that I have taken that the mortgage deed was not executed bona fide and for the benefit of the estate and that it is not competent to one executor to compromise the claims of his co-executor, this appeal fails and the appeal and the suit on the mortgage should be dismissed with costs throughout.

Judgment in Appeal No. 107 of 1911.

This appeal is connected with Appeal No. 106 of 1911. In the present case two plaintiffs, representing the public, sued under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of the two executor trustees appointed under the will of Nagapillay, for an account of the estate and for settling a scheme. The Subordinate Judge settled a scheme for the management and directed the new trustees to discharge the debts payable to the plaintiff (appellant) in the connected appeal. There is no contest now regarding the scheme. But the 1st defendant (plaintiff in the connected suit) has appealed, claiming larger sums of money than has been decreed to him. The plaintiffs have preferred no appeal against the direction to pay the appellant. Before deciding the amount due to the appellant, we have to deal with the objection raised by Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar that, as the claim of the appellant was barred, he is not entitled to any relief in the suit. By Ex. QQ, dated the 22nd of April 1902, the 1st defendant ceased to be an executor to the estate of Nagapillay. It was competent to the court to revoke the probate granted to him under section 50 of the Probate and Administration Act for failure to exhibit an inventory. This was done. But the order says nothing about the right of trusteeship. Although for good cause shown a trustee can be removed from his office, it does not appear that the mind of the District Judge was directed towards this question. Certainly, it was not competent to the co-trustee to purchase the appellant out.

This appellant was a creditor of the estate and he also spent his own monies on behalf of the estate. It must be taken that these claims were barred by limitation at the date of the present suit. Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar's contention is that the appellant has a charge upon the property and has twelve years to enforce that charge under Article 132 of the Limitation Act. This is negatived by the decision cited by him, Peary Mohun Mukerjee v. Narendra Nath Mukerjee. It was pointed out in that case that an executor-creditor should bring his suit within 6 years of the accrual of the cause of action, under art. 120 of the Limitation Act. There are numerous Indian and English authorities enunciating the same view. No doubt, if he had the estate in his possession, he might claim a right of retainer and might claim a lien upon it. This has been laid down in Trevor v. Hutchins, In re Rhoades, and Pulman v. Meadows. But the appellant had no property of the trust in his possession at the time of the suit. Consequently if he filed a suit for the amounts due to him, he would have been barred by limitation. Does the fact that an account is claimed against him enable him to get a decree for monies actually due? Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar contended that this is in the nature of a cross-claim by the appellant and that he is not entitled to a decree. The question is not covered by any authority. It is true that the remedy to recover the money is barred by limitation. As was pointed by Mr. Justice Pontifix in Nursing Doyal v. Hurryhur Saha “if the creditor had a lien on the goods of his debtor on a general account, he would be entitled to hold the goods for a debt, the recovery of which was barred by the Limitation Act.” I think this principle extends to alt cases where there is liability to account, whether there is a subsisting lien or not. As I said before, the appellant has not been shown to have ceased to be a trustee, and under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, he is liable to be called upon to render an account. He cannot escape liability on the ground that he was not administering the estate from April 1902. If he was under this disability at the time of the suit, he is in equity entitled to the monies that he may be found to have spent on behalf of the trust. I have been able to find only one case as having any bearing on the present discussion and that is reported in Mclaren v. Public Trustee, In re Robinson. In that case one of the cestui que trust was wrongly overpaid by the executor. In dealing with the claim made by the other cestui que trust for recovering ft, Warrington, J., held that the suit was barred by limitation, but pointed out that in an administration action the bar of limitation will be of no avail. The principle of the decision seems to be that although the remedy by suit may be barrred, so long as the right to account subsists between the parties, limitation cannot be pleaded to defeat the adjustment which the right to account gives. In analogy of this case, I hold that as the appellant was under a liability to account to the trust at the date of the suit, he was entitled to all the eqities flowing from the taking of the account. The liability should not be separated from the right. Moreover, the plaintiffs in this case have not objected to the decree which has been given in appellant's favour for a portion of the amount sued for and the reasoning of Kandasamy Chetty v. Annamalai Chetty which precludes the agitation of a question in partial bar of a claim applies. I would, therefore, disallow the respondent's contention.

On the merits, I see no reason to differ from the Subordinate Judge regarding the claim for the income of the lands. The appellant has been shown to have been grossly negligent and the lower Court was right in fixing the average income as it has done; nor is there any reason for differing from its conclusions regarding the two jewels, the liability to account for barred debts, the rate of interest, and the claim for the doctor's bill, discussed in paragraphs, 63, 66, 64 and 49 respectively.

As regards the claim for the amount spent in attempting to recover certain properties for the trust, I must hold that the Subordinate Judge has taken a very narrow view of the position of the appellant. It was necessary for him to go to Court and the fact that in the compromise he came to with his co-executor, he asked him to carry on the litigation against himself and others does not show that in instituting the suit he did not act honestly. This claim must be allowed.

The second disputed item relates to the value of certain moveable properties which the Subordinate Judge finds the appellant failed to recover for the estate. He did sue for it, the Lower Court's view that if he had taken steps earlier to call in the aid of the police the property would have been secured, is not a proper ground for charging a trustee with mismanagement. This claim against the appellant should be disallowed.

The appellant is also entitled to the sum of Rs. 26 which he advanced for a portrait of the testator with a new to putting it up in the feeding house.

These three amounts will count in favour of the appellant in the adjustment of the accounts. Subject to this modification, the appeal must be dismissed. Parties will bear their costs throughout.

The appellant is entitled to the payment of the amount decreed from out of the corpus of the trust estate.

Appeal No. 106 dismissed and decree modified in appeal No. 107.

A. C. Chidambara Mudaliar v. N. Krishnasami Pillay

Structured Summary of the Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff (executor who had obtained probate)

Arguments advanced on behalf of the 1st defendant (co-executor) and supporting counsel

Arguments recorded on limitation and accounting in the section 92 suit

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

A. C. Chidambara Mudaliar v. N. Krishnasami Pillay

Comments