NIKHIL NATH BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for accounts and payment of the sums found due and owing by the defendant on the said accounts to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs case is follows: The original plaintiffs Promode Ranjan Sarkar, Pabitra Ranjan Sarkar, Prafulla Ranjan Sarkar and Saroj Ranjan Sarkar are the brothers of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, a Hindu governed by the 'dayabhaga School of Law. ( 2 ) ON the 25th January, 1953, the said Nalini Ranjan Sarkar died intestate leaving him surviving the plaintiffs as his only heirs. The original defendant, Hindusthan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd. at a meeting 1 of its Board of Directors held in Calcutta on 12th August, 1940 resolved as follows :resolution No. 6- Re: Premises No. 237, Lower Circular Road, the house with all furniture and fittings, except those purchased by Mr. Sarkar himself (meaning thereby the said Nalini Ranjan Sarkar deceased) will as at present belong to the Society, (meaning thereby the Society) Mr. Sarkar having no title thereto or interest therein. He would, however, have the option to reside in and occupy the premises and to use the furniture, fittings, etc. , and so long as he occupies and uses the same he will have to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month for such occupation and for use of the furniture and fittings, the amount being deducted from his pension or retiring allowance. The Society will pay all taxes and other levies, if any, relating to the above premises. The ordinary maintenance and repair of furniture necessitated as a result of continuous use will be borne by the occupier, the major repairs and all replacements are to be done by the Society. All monies at the credit of Mr. Sarkar with the Society in connection with the proposed purchase by him of No. 237, Lower Circular Road, including the money held to his credit under the Society's Provident Fund Scheme, will be refunded to him after deduction of sums due from him for use and occupation of the said premises. Resolution No. 7: The arrangement mentioned above with the exception of the arrangement re: premises No. 237 Lower Circular Road should be reported to the shareholders at their General Meeting at a suitable opportunity in such form as may be legally advised. The form in which the agreement or agreement between the Society and Mr. Resolution No. 7: The arrangement mentioned above with the exception of the arrangement re: premises No. 237 Lower Circular Road should be reported to the shareholders at their General Meeting at a suitable opportunity in such form as may be legally advised. The form in which the agreement or agreement between the Society and Mr. Sarkar in respect of all the above is or are to be drawn up will be such as is legally advised. Resolution No. 8: It is put on record that Mr. Sarkar's agreement with the Company dated the 30th August, 1935, be discharged and cancelled as on and from the lst of January, 1940. Resolved that the scheme recommended by the Chairman and Drs. B. C. Roy and N-N-Law and described above be and is hereby approved and given effect to. " ( 3 ) THE said Society at a meeting of its Board of Directors held in Calcutta on the 16th December, 1940 resolved inter alia as follows:"resolution No. 2- Shahpur Property Development Scheme : Mr. N. R. Sarkar explained the scheme prepared under his guidance and directions for the development and piecemeal sale of the above property acquired from the Port Commissioner of Calcutta. Mr. Sarkar explained that out of a total area of about 580 Bighas, 125 Bighas would be taken up by roads, etc. and the area available for disposal would be about 455 Bighas. The expenditure would be about Rs. 66,60,000/-under the following principal heads, viz. , The estimated scale price, after development is Rs. 850/- per Kottah and according the total sale proceeds would be Rupees 77,35,000/- and the net profit is, therefore, estimated to be about Rs. 10,00,000/ -. The Secretary is further directed to take instruction from the Investment Committee and the President in connection with important matters relating to the development of the property and to submit periodical reports regarding the progress of development and sale to the Board. Resolved further that Mr. N. R. Sarkar will be paid a bonus of 10% of the total net profit made on the scheme. " ( 4 ) THE said Society at a meeting of its Board of Directors held in Calcutta on the 19th September, 1941 further resolved as follows:-"resolution No. 11 -- Resolved further that Mr. N. R. Sarkar having completed his part of the work relating to the Society's Development Scheme at New Alipore, viz. " ( 4 ) THE said Society at a meeting of its Board of Directors held in Calcutta on the 19th September, 1941 further resolved as follows:-"resolution No. 11 -- Resolved further that Mr. N. R. Sarkar having completed his part of the work relating to the Society's Development Scheme at New Alipore, viz. , acquisition of the property, drawing up a scheme of development and the plan for its execution, making arrangements for road, drainage, lighting, etc. , obtaining sanction of the Calcutta Corporation, settling the prices 2 of plots, settling contracts for the construction of the main roads, sewers, drains, etc. Preparing the estimates of expenditure of profits, etc. , Mr. Sarkar would, notwithstanding his resignation of his office of the President, be entitled to Bonus of 10% on the net profit on this development scheme as and when due as settled by Resolution No. 2 of the Board Meeting dated 16-12-40. " ( 5 ) THE said Society at a meeting of its Boards of Directors held in Calcutta on the 10th of March, 1943 further resolved as follows :"the Directors welcome Mr. N. R. Sarkar and invited him most cordially to occupy his former position of President of the organisation. Resolved that Mr. N. R. Sarkar be and is hereby appointed President of the organisation as from the 18th of February, 1943, with the same functions and on the same terms and conditions as contained in Resolution No. 2, sub-clauses (3), (4) dated the 12th August, 1940 of the Directorate meeting. Resolved also that in regard to Mr. N. R. Sarkar's remuneration in relation to the New Alipore Scheme of development, the Resolution of the Directors, No. 11 of the 19th September, 1941 will remain operative as hitherto. " ( 6 ) THE aforesaid resolutions of the Board of Directors were accepted and ratified by the said Society subsequently. ( 7 ) THE society carried on and worked the aforesaid schemes of development referred to in the aforesaid resolutions and made profits which will appear from the relevant accounts of the said society lying in the possession of the defendant. ( 7 ) THE society carried on and worked the aforesaid schemes of development referred to in the aforesaid resolutions and made profits which will appear from the relevant accounts of the said society lying in the possession of the defendant. ( 8 ) THE plaintiff's case is that in the context of the resolution as aforesaid the said Society became and is liable to pay the plaintiffs the monies lying at the credit of the said deceased Nalini Ranjan Sarkar in connection with premises No. 237, Lower Circular Road in-accordance with the terms of the resolutions. ( 9 ) THE plaintiff's further case is that in the premises as aforesaid the said Society became liable to pay the said Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, 10% of the net profit of the Shahpur Property Development Scheme in accordance with the terms of the resolution dated 16th December, 1940, 19th Sept. , 1941 and 10th of March, 1943. The plaintiffs as heirs of the said deceased became entitled to all monies which became payable by the Society to the deceased as aforesaid. The said Society is liable to render full just, true and faithful accounts of all monies lying to the credit of the said deceased in connection with the premises No. 237 Lower Circular Road and to pay money due and owing to the plaintiffs. The Society became and is liable to render accounts of the said development schemes and 10% of the total net profits of the said schemes to the said deceased and on his death to the plaintiffs. The accounts in connection with premises No. 237 Lower Circular Road, Calcutta were at all material times mutual, open continuous and current and as such no part of plaintiff's case is barred by limitation. It is plaintiffs case that in spite of payment the Society refused to render accounts to the plaintiffs in respect of monies lying to the credit of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar in connection with premises No. 237 Lower Circular Road and since his death to the plaintiffs including 10% of the profits of the aforesaid development schemes. ( 10 ) THE Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. was a company incorporated under the Indian Company's Act with its registered office at No. 4, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. ( 10 ) THE Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. was a company incorporated under the Indian Company's Act with its registered office at No. 4, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. By virtue of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, all the assets and liabilities of the said Society have vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India who has since been substituted as the defendant. The present defendant is liable to render accounts to the plaintiffs. ( 11 ) IN its written statement the original defendant Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. denied that the plaintiffs were the only heirs of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar and stated that the resolution of the Board of Directots as mentioned in the plaint are to be referred to for true meaning, scope and effect thereof. The said defendant also denied to 3 have made any profits in carrying on or working the schemes as alleged in the plaint, as also that the defendant became or is liable to pay to the plaintiffs any money as alleged or at all. By an additional written statement filed after substitution (sic) the Life Insurance Corporation of India has denied the plaintiffs' case in toto. ( 12 ) UPON pleadings of the parties the following issues are settled : (1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (2) Are the plaintiffs the legal heirs and successors of Late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar? (3) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (4) Is the suit barred by limitation? (5) Are the purported resolutions alleged in the plaint borne out and have been acted upon? (6) Does the claim in the suit partakes the character of a debt and cannot proceed in view of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act? (7) Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree in the preliminary form for enquiry in accounts as prayed for in the plaint? (8) What reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to?decisionissue No. 1 :it has been submitted on behalf of the defendant that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit in view of the provisions of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956, read with Section 41 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and Rule 12-A framed thereunder. ( 13 ) THE Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956 contemplates taking over of all insurance business, declared as controlled business, by the Central Govt. with the commencement of this Act, i. e. 19th day of Jan. , 1956. With effect from 1st September, 1956 all the assets and liabilities appertaining to controlled business of all insurers vested in the LICI. Section 17 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 deals with constitution of Tribunals by the Central Govt. for the purpose of the Act and Rule 12-A lays down jurisdiction of a Tribunal inter alia to decide or determine all matters connected with title or of liability of any nature whatsoever in relation to the assets and liabilities pertaining to the controlled business of the insurer transferred to and vested in the Corporation. Under Section 41 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, no Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any matter which a Tribunal is empowered to decide or determine under the Act. ( 14 ) THERE is no denying that all the assets and liabilities of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. vested in the Central Govt. with effect from 19th day of Jan. , 1956, the plaint was filed on 24th day on Jan. 1956, that means, after promulgation of the Emergency Provisions Act. but the Union of India was not impleaded. It is also crystal clear that what has been claimed by the plaintiff was a liability of the erstwhile Society and with the taking over of the management, rights and liabilities of the Society, such liability became the liability of the Central Govt. and later on of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. That being so only the Tribunal created under the Act and not any Civil Court including this Court shall have power to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute raised by the plaintiffs. ( 15 ) IN Suresh Ch. Roy v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in 1978 Labic (NOC) 34 (Cal) (whole text of the judgment has been made available), Mrs. Padma Khastagir, J. , sitting singly held that claims for gratuity, pension etc. of an ex-employee of an erstwhile Insurance Company taken over by the Corporation is a liability partaining to the controlled business and must be decided by the Tribunal. Padma Khastagir, J. , sitting singly held that claims for gratuity, pension etc. of an ex-employee of an erstwhile Insurance Company taken over by the Corporation is a liability partaining to the controlled business and must be decided by the Tribunal. It was held that the words " any question of any nature whatsoever in relation to liabilities" appearing at Rule 12-A are very wide words which would include the question 4 as to whether the liability is in relation to the liability pertaining to the controlled business and within the scope and meaning of Rule 12-A. This decision has all the manner of application to the present case and I have no reason to differ from the learned Judge. ( 16 ) HAVING considered the facts, circumstances and the materials on record, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiffs, claim against the said Society or the LICI cannot be determined by the Court which has no jurisdiction to do so. The issue is answered in the negative. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 : ( 17 ) THESE two issues are taken up together as they are inter-linked. ( 18 ) THE suit was originally filed by Promode Ranjan Sarkar, Pabitra Ranjan Sarkar, Prafulla Ranjan Sarkar and Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, the four brothers of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar who died issueless and as a widower. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed that they were the surviving heirs and successors of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. In paragraph 1 of the written statement filed by the original defendant. Hindusthan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd. it has been stated that the defendant does not admit that the plaintiffs are the only heirs of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. PW-1 Sujit Ranjan Sarkar in cross-examination admits that Nalini Ranjan Sarkar had five brothers, excluding himself, and they were Ramani, Promod, Pabitra, Prafulla and Saroj. There is no whisper in the plaint how Ramani Ranjan Sarkar is represented in this suit. PW-1 Sujit Ranjan Sarkar in cross-examination admits that Nalini Ranjan Sarkar had five brothers, excluding himself, and they were Ramani, Promod, Pabitra, Prafulla and Saroj. There is no whisper in the plaint how Ramani Ranjan Sarkar is represented in this suit. It appears that a partition suit being No. T. S. 84 of 1956 was instituted in the Second Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore by Saroj Ranjan Sarkar and others against defendant No. 4 Santi Ranjan Sarkar, defendant No. 5 Amit Ranjan Sarkar, both sons of Late Ramani Ranjan Sarkar, minors represented by the guardian mother Smt. Snehalata Sarkar and defendant No. 6 Smt. Snehalata Sarkar, and others in respect of properties left by late Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. Thus Ramani Ranjan Sarkar and in the event he died before Nalini Ranjan Sarkar breathed his last, his sons and wife are also the heirs of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar along with the plaintiff's. But it appears that in the present suit. Ramani Ranjan Sarkar or his sons and wife are not represented in any capacity whatsoever. This witness has further stated in cross-examination that the five brothers of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar left altogether 20 (twenty) heirs and successors including the witness but it appears that altogether 11 (eleven) persons figure as plaintiffs and hence all the heirs of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar are not impleaded. But the plaintiff's have claimed as heirs of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. Hence some necessary parties to the suit are left out. The plaintiff are not the only heirs and successors of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar and accordingly, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The issues are answered accordingly against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 4: ( 19 ) NOT pressed, having regard to the materials on record this issue is answered in the negative. Issue No. 7: ( 20 ) THIS issue is taken up before the other two issues for sake of convenience. Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act runs as follows. The issues are answered accordingly against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 4: ( 19 ) NOT pressed, having regard to the materials on record this issue is answered in the negative. Issue No. 7: ( 20 ) THIS issue is taken up before the other two issues for sake of convenience. Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act runs as follows. "214 Proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the Courts of debt from debtors of deceased persons.- (1) No Court shall-- (a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof, or (b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production by the person so claiming, of- (i) a probate or letters of administration to the state of the deceased, or (ii) a certificate granted under Section 31 or Section 32 of the Administrator-General's Act, 1913, 5 and having the debt mentioned therein, or (iii) a succession certificate granted under part x and having the debt specified therein, or (iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889, or (v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1927, and, if granted after the first day of May, 1989, having the debt specified therein. (2) The word "debt" in sub-section (1) any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. (2) The word "debt" in sub-section (1) any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. " ( 21 ) ALTHOUGH excepting on account of rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purpose, all liquidated claims due and owing is a debt for recovery of which no Court would pass a decree unless the person claiming through the deceased creditor produces succession certificate or probate or letters of administration, but when the catena of decisions shows that in very many circumstances Succession Certificate is not required if the debt is due to the joint family, vide ILR 36 All 380 : (AIR 1914 All 68 (1), 26 Cal WN 488 : (AIR 1922 Cal 149), AIR 1957 Orissa 100, (1892) ILR 16 Bom 240, (1895) ILR 19 Bom 338, 40 Bom LR 964 : (AIR 1938 Bom 451 ). In Sheetal Chandra v. Lakshi Monee, (1936) ILR 63 Cal 15 this Court took the view that this section applies to the case of a person claiming succession to the goods of the deceased and does not apply to the case where the claimant has obtained property not as an heir but by survivorship. It is also already settled that this section is intended to protect the debtor from multiplicity of suits and so has no application to arrears of rent or mesne profits, or bars a suit for ejectment. In a celebrated Full Bench decision of Calcutta High Court, reported in Banchharam v. Adyanath, (1909) ILR 36 Cal 936, "the Debt" under the section has been defined as a sum of money which is presently payable or will become payable in future of a present obligation. "i do not think that the word 'debt' can be restricted to a liquidated sum of money actually due and payable to the deceased at the time of his death. The word must be understood as including not only debts due to the deceased at the time of his death, but also accruing due to his estate or ascertained due to his estate up to the day on which the inclusion of the debt in the certificate is applied for," per Benson J. in Sabju v. Noordin (1898 ILR 22 Mad 139 ). ( 22 ) IN the instant case the plaintiffs have not claimed the money through Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. ( 22 ) IN the instant case the plaintiffs have not claimed the money through Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. It is not that the money alleged to have been due and payable to the plaintiffs, as claimed in the plaint, originally became due and payable to Nalini Ranjan Sarkar. But because Nalini Ranjan Sarkar died, plaintiffs became entitled to get and accordingly are claiming the said money. It is an independent claim of the plaintiffs, which may be called, in modern terminology, a family pension. Although the family pension can be claimed only through the deceased employee but it is an independent claim maintainable by the dependants of the deceased and in no case Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act be a bar against maintainability of such a claim without production of a Succession Certificate. ( 23 ) THE issue is answered in the negative in favour of the plaintiffs. Issues Nos. 5 and 8 : ( 24 ) THESE three issues being inter-linked are taken up together. ( 25 ) PLAINTIFFS case is based on purported resolutions of the Board of Directors of Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. But where are the resolutions? And what are the precise text of the alleged resolutions? In the plaint it is stated categorically that the plaintiffs would rely on copies of the resolutions but not a scrap of paper was annexed within the plaint and has been exhibited to bear out that such resolutions were really passed and that the text of the resolutions show that plaintiffs can maintain any action against the defendant on the basis of such resolutions. ( 26 ) FURTHERMORE, plaintiffs' only witness PW-1 Sujit Ranjan Sarkar in examination in chief says that he has no personal knowledge about the said resolution. He, however, alleges that he came to know from his father who was an original plaintiff that the present suit was pending in the Calcutta High Court wherein Some remuneration due to Late Mr. Sarkar had been claimed. But the amount claimed in the suit is not a remuneration due to Late Mr. Sarkar, and this cryptic knowledge about the alleged resolution leads us no where. ( 27 ) THIS witness further says that his father handed him a copy of the resolution which he made over to his lawyer but the alleged copy of the resolution has not been exhibited either. Sarkar, and this cryptic knowledge about the alleged resolution leads us no where. ( 27 ) THIS witness further says that his father handed him a copy of the resolution which he made over to his lawyer but the alleged copy of the resolution has not been exhibited either. ( 28 ) IN the written statement filed by the original defendant it was stated that the defendant would refer to the resolution of the Board of Directors of the society for true meaning, scope and effect thereof. Taking this as an admission that the resolution is there the ld. Advocate for the plaintiff asked LICI to produce the said resolutions on the ground that being successor in interest of the office and business of the original defendant, LICI must have preserved minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of Society. ( 29 ) THE defendant LIC has examined one Hira Lal Shil as the only defence witness who became Regional Manager (Legal and Housing Properties and Finance) of LIC, Eastern Zone, Cal. The witness joined Hindusthan Insurance Co-operative Society Ltd. in 1952 and worked in Hyderabad Unit till 1956 whereafter he was transferred to Calcutta. He affirmed the additional written statement filed by the LICI on 22nd Nov. , 1988. He says when he was asked to affirm the written statement, he tried to locate the alleged resolutions in the Hindusthan Building belonging to the erstwhile society but could not find out the resolutions anywhere. He says he was then Assistant Secretary (Legal) of the LICI and instructed FOX and MANDAL, the Solicitors that he himself searched for the Minute books of the Board of Directors of the erstwhile society from the Officer-in-Charge, but neither could locate the minute book personally nor the officer-in-charge, A. K. Mukherjee who has since retired, could do so. It is evident that the original resolution is not forthcoming. Even a copy of the same, which the witness says he was handed over by his father is not also exhibited. So existence of the resolution being doubtful and in absence of the text of the resolution, there can be no question of granting the relief as prayed for to the plaintiffs. Even a copy of the same, which the witness says he was handed over by his father is not also exhibited. So existence of the resolution being doubtful and in absence of the text of the resolution, there can be no question of granting the relief as prayed for to the plaintiffs. ( 30 ) UPON considering the facts, circumstances and materials on record, I am of the firm opinion that plaintiffs' case crumbles and falls to the ground in absence of the resolutions or any cogent and authentic evidence about existence of such resolutions. The plaintiffs have failed to establish their case and are not entitled to any relief. The issues are answered against the plaintiffs. ( 31 ) IN the result the suit fails. ( 32 ) THEREFORE, it is ordered that the suit be dismissed on contest, but in the circumstances without cost. Order accordingly.