High Courts(1901) 02 MAD CK 0009

Charles Bentinck Barclay and Another vs Robert Stanes and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 6 February 1901 · Citation: (1901) 11 MLJ 188

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 180 words
1.

We are of opinion that the order of the District Judge is not v decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, and is not

executable as such. The order does not direct payment by anybody. It is hardly conceivable that the District Judge can have intended to make the

new trustees personally liable. The defendants raise by their written statement in the suits, among others, the main questions between the parties

(though they are not clearly raised in the issues), namely, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to anything until they have accounted for all sums that

have come to their hands in the course of their trusteeship, and whether they have so accounted or whether at the date of the order of the District

Judge (the 6th December 1897) the defendants in the suits or the beneficiaries were entitled to demand any further account from the plaintiffs and

can demand such accounts. We must, therefore, allow the appeals, reverse the decrees of the District Judge, and remand the cases for disposal

according to law.