Judgment Raj Kishore Prasad, J. 1. This appeal, by the plaintiff, which arises out of a suit for partition, is from the judgment of the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, First Court, Gaya, refusing her claim for rendition of accounts by defendant No. 1. 2. The sole question for determination, in the present appeal therefore, is: is defendant 1 liable to render accounts to the plaintiff? 3. In order to decide the above question, it is necessary to state the material facts having bearing on this point. 4. One Anandi Ram had four sons, namely, (1) Mohan Sahu, (2) Devi Sahu, (3) Sheochand Sahu (defendant 1), now dead, and (4) Deochand Sahu, the husband of the plaintiff. Admittedly, Deochand Sahu died on 18-2-1945. After his death, in 1945 a suit was brought by his daughters sons against the present plaintiff and the defendants, alleging that Deochand Sahu, their maternal grandfather, died in a state of separation from his other brothers, and, therefore, they had one-fourth share in the family properties. That suit, ultimately, failed, and, after the dismissal of that suit, at the appellate stage, on 20-11-1952, the present suit was filed the same year by the plaintiff for partition of the joint family properties and for rendition of accounts by defendant 1, the admitted karta and manager of the joint family of her deceased husband. 5. The suit was contested by the defendants, and their defence, regarding the plaintiffs claim for rendition of accounts by defendant 1, was that the joint family was never in possession of Rs. 40,000.00 in cash, as claimed by the plaintiff; that, as a matter of fact, at the time of the death of the plaintiffs husband, only Rs. 700/-, -- Rs. 800/-was in their tahsil (?); that the family of the defendants was very large, requiring occasional heavy expenses, and, as such, there could possibly be no accumulated funds in the hands of the defendants, particularly when their main source of income, the family cloth business, had ceased to exist long ago. The defendants, therefore, denied the liability of defendant 1 to render accounts to the plaintiff. The Court below, on a consideration of the evidence of both sides, granted a decree for partition of all immovable properties of the family in respect of the plaintiffs one-fourth share, as claimed by her. The defendants, therefore, denied the liability of defendant 1 to render accounts to the plaintiff. The Court below, on a consideration of the evidence of both sides, granted a decree for partition of all immovable properties of the family in respect of the plaintiffs one-fourth share, as claimed by her. Her claim for rendition of it counts by defendant 1, however, was refused, on the ground that the joint family had not in its possession a cash balance of Rs. 40,000/-, as alleged by the plaintiff; rather the family, at the time of partition, bad a cash balance of only Rs. 100/-, as stated by D. W, 3, defendant 2, son of defendant 1, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim rendition of accounts by defendant 1. The plaintiffs suit, accordingly, wag partly decreed. 6. On the present appeal, Mr. K.N. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, relying on a Bench decision of this Court, in Jyotibati Chaudharain V/s. Lachhmeshwar Prasad Chaudhuri, AIR 1930 Pat 260, strenuously urged that the Court below had erroneously refused the plaintiffs claim for rendition of accounts by defendant 1, because the object of taking accounts, from defendant 1, was only to discover what was the cash balance of the joint family which was liable to be partitioned and, therefore, it was argued, that, such a nature of taking accounts from the karta of the joint family was permissible in law, and, accordingly, the plaintiffs claim for rendition of accounts should also be decreed. 7. It is a settled law that, in the absence of proof of direct misapprerpriation or fraudulent and improper conversion, by the manager of a joint family estate, of the moneys of the joint family to his personal use, he is liable to account on partition only for assets which he received, not for what he ought to or might have received if the family moneys had been profitably dealt with, Therefore, in an ordinary suit for partition of joint family property, in the absence of fraud or other improper conduct, the only account the karta is liable for is as to the existing state of the property divisible, and the parties have no right to look back and claim relief against past inequality of enjoyment of the members or other matters. A co-parcener seeking partition, therefore, in the absence of such proof, is not entitled to require the manager or karta to account for his past dealings with the family property. All that he is entitled to is an account of the family property as it exists at the time he demands a partition. But, of course, this does not mean that the parties are bound to accept the statement of the karta as to what the properties consist of. That would not be an account at all. The karta is the accountable party, and the enquiry directed by the Court must be conducted in the matter usually adopted to discover what in fact the property (not what the karta says it) now consists of. By the taking of such account, it is not intended that the different payments by the manager, or moneys taken out by the members of the family, should be inquired into, but it is to ascertain what portion of the savings of the family, or the accumulations which have been made, the plaintiff would be entitled to. The karta of a joint Mitakshara Hindu family, therefore, is not accountable for the rents, issues and profits, which came into his hands during his management of the properties as karta. But he is still bound to keep true and correct accounts and to show the savings effected from the income of the joint family properties: A. Perrazu V/s. A. Subbarayadu, 48 Ind App 280: AIR 1922 PC 71; and Shookmoy Chandra Doss V/s. Monoharri Dassi, 12 Ind App 103 (PC), which was followed by the Calcutta Court in Parmeshwar Dubey V/s. Gobind Dubey, ILR 43 Cal 459: (AIR 1916 Cal 500(2)). 8. 8. Following the decision in Parmeshwar Dubeys case, of the Calcutta High Court, ILR 43 Cal 459: (AIR 1916 Cal 500(2)), above mentioned, this Court, in the same case, when it came up before this Court after the final decree had been made in the suit, which is reported in Gobind Dubey V/s. Parmeshwar Dubey, AIR 1921 Pat 487(2)), held, which decision was quoted with approval in the subsequent case of this Court in Jyotibati Chaudharain AIR 1930 Pat 260 (supra), relied upon by the appellant, that the nature of the account which a karta is liable to render is not an account which a trustee or an agent is liable to render, but the object of the taking of the accounts is to discover what are the joint family properties liable to be partitioned. 9. The case of Joytibati Chaudharain, AIR 1930 Pat 260 (supra), came earlier also before another Division Bench of this Court, in connection with court-fee, and, the decision is reported in Jyotibati Chaudharain V/s. Lachhmeshwar Prasad, AIR 1930 Pat 1: ILR 8 Pat 818, and in that case also it was held that no member of a joint family can ask for an account as against the karta of the family of a preceding period, except for the purpose of determining the properties, including cash, in the hands of the karta so as to be available for partition. 10. I express my cordial assent to the above well established principles of Hindu Law. 11. Having thus ascertained the nature of the liability to account by a karta of a joint family on a suit for partition brought by a co-parcener, and also the nature of the account he is liable to render, let us now examine the facts of the present case. 12. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that at the time of the death of Deochand Sahu, husband of the plaintiff, on 18-2-1945, admittedly, on the rokar bahi for 1352-53 Fs. corresponding to 1945-46, (Ex. 1), produced by the deceased defendant 1. Sheochand Sahu, the admitted karta of the family of the parties, but used by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. corresponding to 1945-46, (Ex. 1), produced by the deceased defendant 1. Sheochand Sahu, the admitted karta of the family of the parties, but used by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 38,255/4/10 1/2 was credited to the capital account, and, therefore, the defendant 1 was bound to account for that sum at least from the date of the death of the plaintiffs husband up to the date of the suit in 1952. 13. The true view regarding the onus of proof, in a case like the present, is this: When the manager of the joint family places before the Court the properties, which, according to him, are liable for division the Court is not bound to accept that as a final word on the subject and it is open to the plaintiff to let in the evidence to show that some properties belonging to the joint family have been excluded from the list furnished by the manager, and, if the Court is satisfied that it is so, they will be included. The omission to include such properties might be by an inadvertent mistake or because of some other reason. In such cases it cannot be said that the manager is guilty of fraud or misappropriation. Likewise, it is open to the plaintiff to show by evidence that the manager has been acting fraudulently during the course of his management and that acts of misappropriation, malversation or of fraud have taken place, in which case the court is at liberty to direct a general account of the management. Without clear evidence regarding acts of fraud or misappropriation there cannot be a general back accounting by the manager: Bappu Ayyar Y. Ranganayaki, (S) AIR 1955 Mad 394 . 14. The real question, in the instant case, therefore, is whether there can be any question of looking back and of asking the defendant 1 to account for his past dealings with the aforesaid money of the Joint family shown to be with it in Ex. 1 in 1945. In my opinion, on the evidence of the record, there cannot be. 15. The plaintiff, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, is not a co-parcener; she has stepped into the shoes of her husband under the Hindu Law and, therefore, she cannot claim greater right than what her husband, as a co-parcener, could have claimed on partition. In my opinion, on the evidence of the record, there cannot be. 15. The plaintiff, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, is not a co-parcener; she has stepped into the shoes of her husband under the Hindu Law and, therefore, she cannot claim greater right than what her husband, as a co-parcener, could have claimed on partition. Her husband was not entitled to call upon the karta to render accounts to him for his past dealings, unless he established fraud, misappropriation or improper conversion of the joint family funds by defendant 1. The plaintiff, therefore, has the same rights as her husband had in respect of the joint family property. 16. The crucial question, therefore, is: Is the plaintiff entitled to open up past accounts from 1945 to 1952? In my opinion, she is not. 17. The plaintiff nowhere in her plaint alleged any fraud or misappropriation, or improper conversion, of any joint family property, including cash, much less the alleged cash in hand, by defendant 1. In paragraph 11 of the plaint, she alleged that the defendant 1, with mala fide and fraudulent motive, does not disclose the account of the income and expenditure of the joint family, and, as such, he being the karta and manager of the joint family, was liable to render accounts to her regarding the income and expenditure of the joint family assets since the date of the death of her husband till the date of the suit. In paragraph 12 of her plaint, she further alleged that, although she did not know the exact amount in the hands of defendant 1, she estimated the cash to he Rs. 40,000.00 and, accordingly, in the relief portion, in paragraph 17(c), she claimed rendition of accounts by defendant 1. The above allegations of the plaintiff were denied by the defendants in paragraphs 14 and 15 of their written statement. They specifically denied that Rs. 40,000.00 were ever in then lands, and, further said that, at the time of the death of the plaintiffs husband, only Rs. 700/--Rs. 800/-were found in the tahsil. They, in paragraph 17, denied their liability to render accounts. They specifically denied that Rs. 40,000.00 were ever in then lands, and, further said that, at the time of the death of the plaintiffs husband, only Rs. 700/--Rs. 800/-were found in the tahsil. They, in paragraph 17, denied their liability to render accounts. In paragraph 13 of their written statement, they further alleged that their family consisted of more than two dozen males, females and children, who required maintenance besides occasions) heavy expenses, and, therefore, there was hardly any probability of accumulated funds, particularly because their family cloth business, which mainly contributed to the acquisition of joint family properties, no longer existed. The defendants further disclosed therein the other previous sources of the income of the family which it no longer bad. 18. * * * 19. * * * 20. (After discussion of some evidence his Lordship proceeded:) The onus was on the plaintiff to let in evidence to shew if actually, on the date of the suit for partition, the joint family had in its possession the alleged cash in hand. 21. As observed by Sir Madhavan Nair of the Privy Council in Lakshmanna V/s. Venknteswarlu, AIR 1949 PC 278: 76 Ind App 202, the initial burden of proving a prima facie case in his favour is cast on the plaintiff; when he gives such evidence as will support a prima facie case the onus shifts to the defendant to adduce rebutting evidence to meet the case made out by the plaintiff. 22. (After discussion of evidence the judgment proceeded): The plaintiff has entirely failed to discharge her onus and to prove her allegations. She has practically adduced no evidence as to what was the cash in hand of the joint family on the date of partition. 23. The plaintiff really did not want the rendition of accounts by defendant 1 with a view to discover what was the cash in hand existing at the date of the suit, but, in fact, in the garb of a partition suit, without even alleging fraud or the like on the part of defendant 1, wanted rendition of accounts with respect to the past dealings of defendant 1 with regard to the cash balance shown in 1945. She, however, on her pleadings and on her evidence, was not entitled to open up past accounts. 24. She, however, on her pleadings and on her evidence, was not entitled to open up past accounts. 24. For these reasons, in my opinion, the decision of the court below, that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim rendition of accounts from defendant 1, is correct, and, its judgment and decree are, accordingly affirmed, and the appeal is, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order for costs of this Court. 25. Sheochand Sahu, defendant 1, is now dead, and his daughter, Jageshwar Devi, who has been substituted in his place, has filed an application that the land given to her by the will, alleged to have been executed by her father, may he allowed to her on partition. It is not stated that the will has been probated. In this view, the petition of Jageshwari Devi will be considered at the time of the actual partition. U.N.Sinha, J. 26 I agree.