Skip to content


Gajendra Nath Nandi Vs. Ganendra Kumar Nandi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.804
AppellantGajendra Nath Nandi
RespondentGanendra Kumar Nandi
Excerpt:
administration suit - suit for account against administrator--prayer for his removal--jurisdiction--ordinary civil court. - .....because it united a claim for the removal of the administrator, cognizable only by the district judge, with a claim for accounts, cognizable by the ordinary civil courts.2. we are unable to accept these views. we think that it was open to the munsif to entertain the suit as an administration suit for the purposes we have already indicated. the prayer for the removal of the administrator might be treated as surplusage or it might form the basis for the grant of such relief as the appointment of a receiver against the administrator. it is certainly not in terms a prayer for the revocation or annulment of the letters of administration, but if as the result of the suit, it became apparent that there was any 'just ground' for revocstion or annulment, we can see no objection to.....
Judgment:

1. We think that this appeal must be allowed. Apart from the prayer for the removal of the administrator, the suit, in the form in which it was brought, appears to have been in the nature of an administration suit against the administrator for the purpose of compelling him to account for the assets of the estate of the deceased and to carry out the duties of his office. The suit was instituted in the Court of a Munsif who by his decree gave certain reliefs to the plaintiff. In the Court of appeal below, the learned Subordinate Judge accepted the contention of the defendant No. 1 that the claim was primarily and essentially for the revocation or annulment of letters of administration with the Will annexed granted by the District, Judge'', and he accordingly held that the ordinary Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He also held that the suit was multifarious because it united a claim for the removal of the administrator, cognizable only by the District Judge, with a claim for accounts, cognizable by the ordinary Civil Courts.

2. We are unable to accept these views. We think that it was open to the Munsif to entertain the suit as an administration suit for the purposes we have already indicated. The prayer for the removal of the administrator might be treated as surplusage or it might form the basis for the grant of such relief as the appointment of a Receiver against the administrator. It is certainly not in terms a prayer for the revocation or annulment of the letters of administration, but if as the result of the suit, it became apparent that there was any 'just ground' for revocstion or annulment, we can see no objection to further proceedings for that purpose being taken before the District Judge

3. The objection that the suit was bad for defect of parties does not appear to have been taken in the trial Court and we think that on that ground the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in giving effect to it.

4. We, therefore, set aside his judgment and decree and direct that the appeal be reheard by him with reference to the observations which we have made. Costs will abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //