VAZIRBHAI SULTANBHAI TAMBOLI Vs. GADMAL NATHMAL MARWADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge at Nasik. The only point to be determined is whether the plaintiff's suit for taking accounts of the partnership business is barred by the law of limitation. Both the lower Courts have held the claim to be time-barred. In January, 1933, before the plaint was filed, the plaintiff gave a notice of demand for accounts. According to the plaint that was because there was an agreement between the parties the terms whereof are recited in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The trial Court upheld the agreement but the lower appellate Court came to a contrary decision. In second appeal I cannot go into that question of fact which is based on oral evidence. The appellant's contention, if it rested on that agreement only, must be rejected.

(2.) IT is however urged on behalf of the appellant that the inference drawn by the lower Courts, from the fact that no business was done after 1924, that there was a dissolution of partnership is erroneous. As regards the powers of the Court in second appeal, in Wali Mohammad v. Mohammad Baksh (1929) 32 Bom. L.R. 380, P.C. it is stated amongst other things as follows : The legal inference to be drawn from proved or admitted facts is a matter of law, or, in other words, the proper legal effect of a proved fact is essentially a question - of law, but the question whether a fact has been proved when evidence for and against has been properly admitted is necessarily a pure question of fact.