JUBEDABI Vs. JAINABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased legal representative of the deceased-defendant. The respondents are the legal representatives of the plaintiff. The, plaintiff filed RCS.120 of 1952 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Belgaum, for dissqlution of partnership and accounts. The partnership was entered into, in December, 1948. The partnership business related to excavation of Manganese qre, extracted in Goa territory. The plaintiff and defendant each contributed Rs.8000 and they agreed to share the profit and loss, equally and the defendant had to keep the accounts of the business. The partnership business appears to have been carried on from 1949 to 1951. The plaintiff issued a, notice in Nov.1951 to the; Deft to render accounts of the partnership business. The Deft, denied the existence of the partnership and also the investment of Rs. 8,000 by the Pltff. The trial Court, after recording evidence, passed a preliminary decree on 30-8-54. Mr.K.V.Kulkarni, Pleader, Belgaum, was appointed as Commissioner to take accounts of the partnership business. The defendant appealed against the preliminary decree; in CA.457 of 1954. The appeal was partly allowed by the learned Dist Judge who held that the liability to account related to the ore extracted from only one off the hills and not from the two hills as found by the trial Court. The defendant filed second appeal before this Court, namely, SA.32 of 1957 which was dismissed on 242-1960. The Commissioner submitted his report to the trial Court on 12-9-1964 stating that since neither party produced any evidence, before him, 'he could not proceed with the work entrusted to him. On 16-12-1965 a join memo, was filed on behalf of the legal representatives of the plaintiffs as well as on behalf of the legal representatives of the defendant since both the parties had died by then, which is Ext.261. It reads as follows:

(2.) The finding of the trial Court before it passed the preliminary decree was that the defendant was keeping the accounts of the partnership business. Its finding also was that Rs.8000 was contributed by the plaintiff to the partnership business as his share of the capital. These findings have been confirmed in the second appeal by this Court on 2-12-60.

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiff some tippans or chits were produced. The lower appellate Court held that they are not of much help in determining the dispute between the parties with regard to the partnership business. The oral evidence; adduced on behalf of both the parties has been considered to be unsatisfactory by both the lower Courts. The widow of the defendant stated in her evidence, that the defendant was maintaining accounts of his other business and that the account books relating to those business had come into, her custody subsequent to the death of the defendant, which was in 1957. But, she has stated that the defendant was not maintaining accqunts with regard to the extraction of the ore from the suit mine and that she had not come into possession of any account books relating to the suit mine. She stated in her evidence that her husband was paying income-tax to the Govt and the Govt recqvered Rs.7,000 as estate duty. She also admitted that the documents are in her custody to show that she had paid royalty of the mines in Shimoga, Dist as well as the list of sales of manganese ore;. The lower appellate Court, therefore, disbelieved her statement that she had no documents relating to the suit mining lease and the partnership business and that she has suppressed documents relating to the partnership business in order to defraud the plaintiff. The evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff was to the effect that the partnership business made a profit of Rs. 80,000 per year and the lower appellate Court considered that evidence as improbable. It accordingly held that the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 8,000, being the plaintiff's share of the capital invested by him.