B KISHANLA L Vs. SUKHDEV PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants in this appeal which arises out offinal decree proceedings. The suit was laid for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts. Preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 14-11-1958.

(2.) In this appeal the only controversy is with regard to payment of interest. In the decree under appeal the court below directed that interest is payable from the date of the preliminary decree. The learned counsellor the appellants argued that in a suit for dissolution of partnership direction regarding payment of interest from the date of preliminary decree is unsustainable and the parties are entitled to interest only from the date of the final decree. Now, the substantive provision in respect of which the Judicial pronouncements are made on this question is Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 9 of 1932. The earliest pronouncement on this question was made in Suleman vs. Abdul Latif #1 where Lord Russell of Killowen observed thus: "This is not an action to recover some debt, of which it can be said that it was due at the date of the plaint It is an action to dissolve and wind up the affairs of a partnership and until the accounts have been taken, it is impossible to say what, if anything, is due from any partner to his co-partners. In their Lordships opinion interest should only be allowed (there being no agreement to the contrary) to the plaintiffs from the date of the final decree by which the amount if any is found due from the defendants to the plaintiffs".

(3.) This view has been consistently accepted by the Madras High Court and in Veeraswami vs. Bandam Chitti, #2 Satyanarayana Rao, J. clearly ruled that in a suit for dissolution of existing partnership interest should be allowed only from the date of the final decree. No doubt in a case where the suit is laid in respect of dissolved partnership interest may be given even from the date of filing of the plaint if the circumstances establish that the other partner was in possession of assets or utilised them for the purpose of his business or was otherwise guilty of latches. Vide Swaminatha vs. Nagalingam. #3 Thus, it is seen that the courts have made a distinction while granting interest in a partnership action. The court has in the first instance to see whether the partnership agreement provided any interest and if it does not provide such interest, interest is payable only from the date of the final decree. Tf the suit is for dissolution of a dissolved firm, interest is payable from the date of plaint.