KALYANDAS ANANTLAL Vs. GANGABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of this appeal shall also dispose of Misc. (Second) Appeal No. 40 of 1958 and Misc. (Second) Appeal No. 69 of 1958.

(2.) FOR understanding the question involved in the three appeals, a few facts relevant for the purpose may shortly be stated. Sunderlal and three others, plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4, formed a Joint Hindu family. Kashiram, Champalal and Anant-lal (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) were members of another joint Hindu family. All the aforesaid members of the two joint families were partners in a partnership owning a Ginning and Pressing Factory at Khirkia (hereinafter called the partnership property ). In execution of a decree against the joint Hindu family consisting of Sunderlal and three others (plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4), Gopaldas, Purshot-tam and Khatau (plaintiffs Nos. 5 to 7) purchased the Interest of Sunderlal and others in the partnership property. Thereafter, plaintiffs Nos. 5 to 7 as transferees of the interest of the first foui plaintiffs in the partnership property filed Civil Suit No. 10-B of 1940 for an account of profits of their transferors' interest in the said property and for its payment to them. This suit failed because plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4, the original partners in the partnership concerned, were not parties to the suit. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 then served a notice on the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for a dissolution of the partnership and for an account of the dissolved partnership and thereafter plaintiffs 1 to 4 together with plaintiffs Nos. 5 to 7 who were transferees of their interest filed a suit (Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1944) against defendants 1 to 3 for an account of the dissolved partnership, or, in the alternative, for dissolution of the partnership and accounts. In this suit a preliminary decree was passed on 21-11-1946 for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts. It was held that the partnership stood dissolved as from 21-8-1943, the date of the notice, and that a Commissioner be appointed for taking accounts. While the proceedings before the Commissioner for taking of accounts were going on, an appeal against the preliminary decree was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Hoshangabad, which was dismissed. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed in the High Court against the aforesaid dismissal. While the second appeal in the High Court was pending, the parties entered into a compromise settling all their disputes and a petition for recording the compromise was filed in the trial Court under Order 23, Rule 3, C. P. C. It may here be mentioned that by this time defendant No. 3 Anantlal had the d and his sons Kalyandas and Daudas had been brought on record as defendants 3 (a) and 3 (b ).

(3.) THE relevant terms of this compromise were as follows: