JAINA MUHAMMAD SHERIFF MARACAIR ALIAS JACKIRIA MUHAMMAD SHERIFF MARACAIR (DECEASED) AND ORS. Vs. THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF MADRAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of O.S. No. 1 of 1941 on the file of the District Court of East Tanjore. The suit was filed by the appellant in A.S. No. 257 of 1943 for various reliefs regarding the properties in suit. The first defendant is the Official Assignee of Madras who is acting as an auxiliary of the Official Assignee of Singapore in the insolvency of the second defendant K. Muhammad Hussain. Muhammad Hussain was adjudged a bankrupt by the Singapore Court by an order passed in January, 1931. At the instance of the Official Assignee of Singapore m whom the estate of the second defendant vested, the Official Assignee of Madras has been acting in aid of and as the auxiliary of the Singapore Official Assignee. This is by an order of the High Court of Madras passed in its insolvency jurisdiction.

(2.) ONE Zacharia Hussain of Velanganni in the Tanjore district started a business in Singapore in boats, lighters, etc., in 1884, and built up a lucrative business. He took his wife's brother the second defendant, Muhammad Hussain to assist him in the business. Zacharia left Muhammad Hussain in charge of the business and returned to India in 1909 having appointed him as his agent. It would appear that from 1909 to 1911 another person was associated as joint agent with the second defendant and afterwards the second defendant was acting as the sole agent of Zacharia Hussain. Zacharia lived ever afterwards in British India and did not go to Singapore. He died in British India on the 20th December, 1917. Thereafter the second defendant was left in sole charge without any effective control. The plaintiff Sheriff Maracair is the eldest son of Zacharia. The third defendant is his Singapore wife. Fourth and fifth defendants are the sons of Zacharia and brothers of the plaintiff and the sixth defendant is Zacharia's daughter by his Indian wife. The seventh defendant is the wife of the second defendant and she is impleaded as being in possession of certain properties claimed in suit. We are not in this appeal concerned with the eighth defendant. The ninth defendant is the Muslim Association of Nagore. It is in possession of the fourth item in Schedule B. The tenth defendant is the purchaser of the properties in C schedule. He died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 12 to 15 have been added as legal representatives. We are not concerned with the eleventh defendant in this appeal.

(3.) NOTHING seems to have been done in pursuance of this and the parties entered into a partnership agreement evidenced by Ex. P -4 on the 23rd November, 1928. Instead of having an account taken of the business as directed by Ex. P -3 the parties agreed that the business should be run in partnership with the administrators of the estate of Zacharia on the one side and Muhammad Hussain the second defendant on the other. It would appear that the second defendant had transferred his business in lighters and boats to his Singapore wife and the assets of that business and the other properties in Singapore were brought into the partnership as partnership assets. There are other conditions which will be referred to when necessary.