SHANTARAM SADASHIVA HARITHE Vs. SRIPADA BHAVANI SHANKAR CHINKKARAMANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the second defendant in suit No. 422 of 1957 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, (Now Munsiff), Kumta, and against the judgment of the District Judge, Karwar, in C.A. 161/62. The suit was for dissolution of Partnership and accounts and filed by the first respondent herein.

(2.) The partnership firm was constituted in the name and style of Salt Marketing Association, Sanikatta, in the year 1947. The exact date of the constitution of the partnership is not made known, nor the deed of partnership which ought to be in the custody of the defendant, has been produced. The case of the plaintiff is, that the partnership was constituted for the purpose of purchase and sale of salt for a period of three years only. After the said period expired the business was continued and a balance sheet was prepared only in the year 1956. He therefore, filed the present suit for dissolution in 1957.

(3.) It is admitted that one of the partners, Padmanabha by name, died on 8-12-1954. On behalf of the appellant herein and the other defendants it was contended that the business came to an end in the year 1952 and the same was continued thereafter only for the purpose of clearing away the stock of salt still with the firm and collection of the outstandings due to it. The appellant herein who was the Secretary of the Society has also spoken to the fact that the stock of salt was cleared by the end of December 1952, and the outstandings were collected only in the year 1955. It is also contended that all the members of the present firm became members of another Co-operative Society, thus virtually allowing the firm to be absorbed in the said Society. It is, therefore, contended that the dissolution took place in the year 1952. and in December of that year at the latest. In this view of the matter, the suit having been filed more than three years beyond that date, that is or. 7-12-1957, was barred by time. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the dissolution of the firm took effect in the year 1952 itself having regard to the provisions of S. 42 of the Partnership Act, and that being so, the suit was clearly barred by time. In appeal by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge reversed the said finding and decreed the suit as prayed for, with certain directions. Aggrieved by this decree, the second defendant appeals.