JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. :- Monmohan Saha was a rich person of Dhaka (now in Bangladesh). He died leaving him surviving his three sons, Gopiballav Saha, Radhaballav Saha and Pranballav Saha. He had a daughter who also died. It is not clear whether she inherited any share in the property of Monmohan. Gopiballav, Radhaballav and Pranballav subsequently acquired properties in West Bengal. They jointly carried on business in Kolkata. They maintained a joint mess as undivided Hindu family having properties at Murari Pukur Road. Three brothers purchased the properties jointly by registered Conveyance dated March 3, 1986. The members of Hindu Undivided Family continued to occupy the new building constructed thereon as their residence with effect from 1967, a portion of which was let out to different tenants. Radhaballav was in Judicial Service. After partition of Bengal he opted for West Bengal and joined West Bengal Judicial Service. He acted as a Karta in the Hindu Undivided Family and used to have management and control of the administration of the joint estate. The other two brothers, Gopiballav and Pranballav were residing at Bangladesh at the material times. Radhaballav used to manage the entire affairs and was supposed to maintain accounts. The other two brothers, subsequently, came to India. They separated themselves from the joint mess in June, 1972 however, the properties were kept under the control of the Hindu Undivided Family of which Radhaballav was the Karta. There was discord as the other two groups were not getting the true and correct picture of the family income. They were also not getting appropriate share in the property. The discord surfaced and took a worse turn when Radhaballav constructed a garage without the permission of the Municipal Authority and the other co-sharers. 2. The plaintiff being the son of Gopiballav filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No.41 of 1979 inter alia, claiming for partition and accounts. The plaintiff Gajendra Nath Saha complained of obstruction in the common passage in view of construction of the garage as also water facility. He also asked for accounts and appropriate share in the rental income. During pendency of the suit, Radhaballav died leaving him surviving his heirs who were substituted subsequently. The other two sons of Gopiballav and the widow of Gopiballav were also made parties. The widow being the defendant No. 5 died in May, 1989. He also asked for accounts and appropriate share in the rental income. During pendency of the suit, Radhaballav died leaving him surviving his heirs who were substituted subsequently. The other two sons of Gopiballav and the widow of Gopiballav were also made parties. The widow being the defendant No. 5 died in May, 1989. The other two sons being the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 also transferred their share to Gajendra Nath as claimed by him. 3. Radhaballav filed written statement denying each and every allegation made against him. According to him, the suit was not maintainable as all the joint properties were not brought within the hotchpotch of the said partition suit. He also denied having collected exclusively the rent or kept joint fund of the estate. He disputed the authority of the plaintiff to file the suit in absence of any Will being executed by his elder brother Gopiballav. He denied the right, title and interest claimed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. According to him, Gopiballav as Karta of the joint family continued to look after business at Calcutta as well as in East Pakistan. He also asserted that the parties amicably partitioned the property amongst themselves whereby Gopiballav got the eastern block. According to him, the ornaments were still lying in the custody of the plaintiff. He was not entitled to interfere with the other two blocks as his father was allotted a distinctive block as above. 4. The defendant No.2 also filed a written statement, so was the defendant No.4. All of them contested the suit as against the plaintiff. 5. From the tenor of the allegations it would appear that the plaintiff wanted a decree for accounts as, according to him, Radhaballav was maintaining the same whereas Radhaballav denied such assertion. 6. The learned Judge heard the suit and passed a preliminary decree dated December 4, 1997 appearing at pages 142-186 of the Paper Book. The learned Judge, ultimately, came to conclusion that there was no oral partition as claimed by the defendants. The learned Judge held that the suit was maintainable and the plaintiff was able to prove his case claiming partition of the suit property. However, the learned Judge was against the plaintiff on the issue of accounts. 7. The learned Judge, ultimately, came to conclusion that there was no oral partition as claimed by the defendants. The learned Judge held that the suit was maintainable and the plaintiff was able to prove his case claiming partition of the suit property. However, the learned Judge was against the plaintiff on the issue of accounts. 7. According to the learned Judge, plaintiff miserably failed to prove his case for accounting with regard to compensation money received from the property left by the family in East Pakistan now Bangladesh. He was also debarred from claiming any partition of the movables in absence of appropriate evidence. On the declaration of shares, the learned Judge declared him as owner of 1/9th share. The learned Judge did not take into account the transfer of share by the plaintiff brother in favour of the plaintiff as referred to above. Similarly, the learned Judge also did not take into account the transfer made by other coparcener in favour of the plaintiff. 8. Despite repeated call, the respondents did not appear. The appeal was ready as regards service. In fact, defendants entered appearance through their respective advocates as we find from the record. Subsequently, only Ms. Debasree Chakrabarty appeared representing the respondent No.2. She also did not appear at the time of hearing. We were thus compelled to close the hearing. 9. The appellant relied on the following decisions : i) All India Reporter 1951 Madras Page- 938 (Babburu Basavayya & Ors. v. Babburu Guravayya & Anr.) ii) All India Reporter 1955 Madras Page-629 (R.M.N. Ramanathan Chetliar v. Narayanan Chettiar, minor & Ors.) iii) All India Reporter 1977 Calcutta Page-99 (Saraswati Debi and Ors. v. Satya Narayan Gupta) i) In the decision in the case of R.M.N. Ramanathan Chetliar, (AIR 1955 Mad 629) (supra), the Apex Court observed that a karta or manager of a joint Hindu family was not liable to account in absence of proof of direct misappropriation. ii) In the case of Babburu Basavayya & Ors., ( AIR 1951 Mad 938 ) (supra), the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court considered the issue of mesne profit. iii) In the decision in the case of Saraswati Debi & Ors., ( AIR 1977 Cal 99 ) (supra), the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Babburu Basavayya, (AIR 1951 Mad 983) (supra) was relied upon. iii) In the decision in the case of Saraswati Debi & Ors., ( AIR 1977 Cal 99 ) (supra), the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Babburu Basavayya, (AIR 1951 Mad 983) (supra) was relied upon. Our Division Bench held, ewe have no doubt that in a partition suit like the one before us, where different properties and businesses are involved, the question of accounts and joint liabilities and assets of the estate to be partitioned becomes essential and for that purpose no separate prayer for rendering accounts need be mentioned in the plaint. 10. On a combined reading of the aforesaid three decisions, we are of the view that in partition suit a coparcener is entitled to pray for accounts from the persons having the control and management of the affairs of the joint family property. It would depend upon the proof that the manager or the karta mishandled the funds that resulted in misappropriation. In absence of such evidence, the plaintiff would not be entitled to a decree for account. Mere allegation as to misuse of funds would not be sufficient. In the instant case, the plaintiff alleged that Radhaballav maintained the account and was obliged to furnish the same. Radhaballav categorically denied such allegation in his written statement. The other defendants corroborated him, at least plaintiff did not find any support from any of the coparceners. In such event, the Court below was right in denying the relief as to the accounts. 11. On the issue of allotment of shares, we find, the appellant got the Will of his father probated from the competent court of law that was tendered in evidence. By a registered Deed of Conveyance dated December 30, 2005, Gunendra, the defendant No. 4 conveyed his 1/9th share to the plaintiff Gajendra as appears from the appellant application being CAN No.7242 of 2006. 12. He, subsequently, got the share of his brother Ganendra transferred in his name vide Deed of Conveyance dated June 5, 2009. By the said Conveyance Ganendra Nath Saha, the brother of the appellant conveyed his share in favour of the appellant. From the recital, we find that Gopiballav executed a Will dated October 7, 1964 bequeathing his undivided 1/3rd share to his three sons Ganendra, Gajendra and Gunendra in equal share subject to the life interest of his widow Prafulla Bala. By the said Conveyance Ganendra Nath Saha, the brother of the appellant conveyed his share in favour of the appellant. From the recital, we find that Gopiballav executed a Will dated October 7, 1964 bequeathing his undivided 1/3rd share to his three sons Ganendra, Gajendra and Gunendra in equal share subject to the life interest of his widow Prafulla Bala. Prafulla died subsequently on May 10, 1989. 13. In view of two successive transfers by Gunendra and Ganendra, the plaintiff became the owner of 1/3rd share in the family property. 14. The preliminary decree passed by the Court below stands modified to the extent that the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/3rd share in respect of the suit property to the exclusion of other defendants. 15. On the issue of accounts we do not find any scope to interfere particularly in absence of any evidence. On that score, the learned Judge held that he miserably failed to prove the allegation. We do not find any scope of interference. We however observe that the parties would be at liberty to approach the Court below for direction upon the Commission of Partition not only to partition the suit property by metes and bounds but also to make suitable arrangement with regard to attornment of tenancies so that the rents could be collected by the respective allottees. With these modifications, the appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs. 16. Urgent photostat copy will be given to the parties, if applied for. Shukla Kabir (Sinha), J. : 17. I agree. Order accordingly.