1. This appeal arises out of the same suit as Raghunath Das v. Kishen Lal 28 Ind. Cas. 854. In that suit a decree was made against the appellant here (Lala Nathu Mal) ordering him to file accounts. The Court below has found a considerable sum as being due by him. It is contended on his behalf in the first instance that it was not competent to the Court, having regard to the fact that the suit was brought under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to make a decree against him for an account. He contends that lie is not and was not a trustee, and that, therefore, an independent suit was necessary against him to establish his liability. We find, however, on looking at the plaint in Suit No. 4 of 1913 that in paragraph 7 the clearest allegations are made against Nathu Mal that lie was a trustee and that he entered into possession of the property as such and misappropriated it. Nathu Mal put in no written statement and he never appealed against the decree ordering him to account. Under Section 92 the Court may direct accounts to be taken and to grant such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require. In our opinion these provisions are quite wide enough to entitle the Court to direct an account against a trustee and to make an order upon him to pay the amount found to be due upon the taking of those accounts.
2. It is next contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge found the account against him on insufficient evidence. We find on looking at the record that Nathu Mal neglected to appear before the Judge. The Judge, therefore, had to take the accounts as best as he could in his absence. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the decree of the Court below and dismiss the appeal with costs, including in this Court fees on the higher scale.