LAXMIBEN Vs. CHANDRAVADAN CHHOTALAL SORATWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the heirs of original defendant No. 1 which was opened but not argued by the learned counsel for the appellants on realising that what he considered to be a grievance was not in point of fact a grievance and that he was labouring under some misconception.

(2.) The suit giving rise to the present appeal was instituted on October 22 1956 on behalf of a minor admitted to the benefits of a partnership. The suit was commenced under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 30 for taking accounts of his share and for payment thereof to him and for severing his connection from the firm. The trial Court decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree on October 20 1967 The relevant direction was incorporated in clause (1) of paragraph 28 of the judgment of the trial Court. By virtue of the said direction it was declared: connection of plaintiff Chandravadan Chhotalal was severed with the suit firm on and from the date of the filing of the suit. Now admittedly the date of the filing of the suit was October 22 1956 Therefore the connection of the minor was severed with effect from October 22 1956 and accounts had to be made as per the valuation as on the date of the suit i. e. on October 22 1956 This decree was confirmed by the District Court in appeal on February 18 1969 The heirs of original defendant No. 1 laboured under a misconception that the decree directed severance of the connection of the plaintiff with effect from the date of his attaining majority and not with effect from the date of the institution of the suit. They thereupon appealed to the High Court. The matter was admitted on October 24 1969 It came up for hearing for the first time to-day on March 27 1974 18 years after the suit was instituted and 5 years after the District Court confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. And to-day as soon as the matter was opened and the submission was urged that the severance cannot be with effect from a date later than that of the institution of the suit and the assessment cannot be made as on a date later than that of the institution of the suit the record was verified and it was realised that in fact the decree directed severance with effect from the institution of the suit and directed the assessment of the share as on the said date. In fact therefore what counsel considered to be grievance was not in reality a grievence at all for it was based on some misconception regarding the date. Upon realising this the learned counsel for the appellant could not press the appeal.

(3.) The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.