1. This is an appeal by the. plaintiff. The plaintiff ; by his claim prays that defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 do render true and faithful accounts of the management of the estate of the plaintiff and defendant 1 from 14th July 1915 when the plaintiff's father died till August 1925 when the plaintiff resumed charge of the estate. Then he asks for a decree for the amount from June and lie asks for ancillary reliefs. The learned Subordinate fudge has given a decree directing that defendants 2 to 4 do render accounts in respect of the respective periods of their management, namely defendant 2 (as interim guardian) from 14th July 1915 up to 1st December 1917, and defendants 3 and 4 (as guardians appointed by Court) from 1st December 1917 to 9th April 1925. He has thus obsolved defendant 5 from liability to account. A further question arises in the appeal as to the liability of defendant 8. Defendant 8 is the son of defendant 5. Defendant 5 it is said may be liable under two heads. One as a person intermeddling in the management of this estate and secondly as a person liable under the security bond given by him to Court at the time when defendants 3 and 4 were appointed guardians of the minor plaintiff As regards the liability of defendant 8 we do not deal with the matter now because we have arrived at the conclusion that defendant 5 is an accounting party and we think it would be better to determine defendant's 8 liability, if any, after the taking of accounts against defendant 5, in order that we may know with greater precision what defendant 5's liability is and whether in respect of the whole or part of that liability defendant 8 as son is liable.
2. The point debated is a very short one and it is this: Whether on the facts of this case defendant 5 is or is not an accounting party. The facts which can hardly be disputed are that throughout, defendant 5 was taking not merely an active part but the principal part in the management of this estate. He was a relative and a rich relative. Defendants 3 and 4 were guardians appointed 'by Court following upon the interim guardianship of the mother, defendant 2. But defendants 3 and 4 are people of very small substance and there is a mass of documentary evidence to support the view that, practically throughout, defendant 5 was the person really in charge. There is also a fair mass of evidence to show that defendant 5 was not solely in charge but was joining now with defendant 3 now with defendant 4, now with both the defendants and sometimes with defendant 2 in some pieces of management; and it is said that where-you have an incermeddler not solely managing but managing in consort with guardians appointed by the Court there is no liability upon him requiring him to account generally. It is argued that it is necessary before you can make him an accounting party to point out some actual wrong that he has done or some-contractual obligation that he has undertaken and then make him account in, respect of that wrong or that contractual obligation. In our opinion that is-not a correct statement of the law. Where a person, such as defendant 5 is shown to have intermeddled in the management of the estate doing the acts ha has done not as the agent of defendants 3 and 4, not as a person engaged as a servant by defendants 3 and 4, but as a person who has arrogated to himself the duties of a guardian de facto he becomes together with the guardians ah accounting party. A number of authorities were cited of which 1925 Mad 17 (1), referred to by the appellant appears to us to be the nearest to this case.
3. The following cases were also relied upon by appellant : 1 Atk 489 Suriaprakasam v. Murugesam Pillai 1925 Mad 17; Petinny v. Warren 47 ER 955; Deo v. Keen 101 ER 1034 and Totaram v. Ram Charan (1911) 33 All 222. None of the authorities cited on behalf of defendant 5 of which Somakka v. Ramayy (1913) 36 Mad 39 and Krishan Chettiar v. Venkatachalapathy Chetiar 1919 Mad 432; 5 Com. Pleas. New Series 113 are the references, seem to us to touch the point now under discussion. It is not the case that we are making defendant 5-solely responsible to render a general account. We are charging him as a person who, together with other guardians, was managing this estato, he intermeddling and they doing such acts of management as they have done in their capacity as guardians. As a matter of fact we are
4. The decree of the lower Court will accordingly be varied by directing that defendant 5 do also together with defendants 2 to 4 reader accounts in respect of the periods from 14th July 1915 to 9th April 1925. Three months time is given to a accounts. The matter of defendant Q'a liability, if any, however will stand over for determination after the accounts have been taken. As the accounts of defendants 2, 3 and 4 ;have already been taken it will be unnecessary to again go into these accounts, and it will be only necessary to take the accounts of defendant, 5 unless it should appear that, in justice to defendant 5, any particular item should be re-examined as regards the liability of defendants 2, 3 and , After this is done the objective and c' but des against the accounts will be hoard when the matter is reported to the High Court. Costs will be decided later.