1. These are exceptions to the accounts submitted by the Receiver appointed by this Court in respect of the subject-matter of appeal from Original Decree No. 234 of 1922. The order was made for the appointment of the Receiver on the 26th March, 1923, and we directed him to submit his accounts every three months. The accounts for the first three months are now before us. There is an abstract statement which shows that the receipts exceeded the expenditure by Rs. 138-5 as. The account books from which the abstract has been prepared have also been produced. The objections taken to the accounts may be grouped under two categories, namely, first, that the vouchers in support of the expenditure have not been produced; and, secondly, that the management has not been economical.
2. As regards the first objection, it has nod been disputed that the vouchers must be produced. The principles applicable are stated in the well-known work by Daniel on Chancery Practice, 1914, Vol, I, p. 920 : 'The account is vouched by the production of the proper vouchers such as receipts. It seems that the vouchers will be admitted as evidence of the payment of the sums therein specified, and credit given to the accounting party in the account, unless the other side shows some reasonable ground for impeaching the vouchers; but if any party objects, the affidavit or oral evidence of the person who received the money is required, and if this cannot be had, then proof must be given of his signature to the voucher.'
3. This is supported by the decisions in Cookes v. Cookes 11 W.R. 871, and Bingham v. Clanmorris 1 Moll. 20. A similar view was adopted by this Court in the case of Baroda Kant Sarkar v. Rashmani Dasi (1913) 20C.L.J. 113, where it was pointed out that the Receiver must not merely show that he paid certain sums as litigation expenses, but also furnished tails of expenditure. The Receiver before us has undertaken to produce the vouchers in the course of a week. When they are produced they will be open to examination by all the parties concerned.
4. As regards the second objection, we are of opinion that the question does not properly arise when a Receiver submits his account in order that it may be passed. In support of this view reference may be made to the decision of Mr. Justice Sale in case of Coomar Sattya Sankar Ghosal v. Ranee Golapmonee Debee (1900) 5 C.W.N. 223, where it was pointed out that the questions with regard to the soundness or prudence of the system of management adopted by a Receiver or charges of wilful default or neglect are not matters that can be disposed of in the shape of exceptions to account. In the present case, the Receiver states that he has continued the management of the estate in the condition in which it was handed over to him. In these circumstances, the proper course open to a party litigant who is dissatisfied with, the mode of management is to draw up a scheme and to submit it for the orders of the Court.
5. The matter is adjourned till Friday next.