LAWS(MPH)-1962-3-14

VENKATLAL BALDEOJI MAHAJAN Vs. KANHIYALAL JANKIDAS

Decided On March 30, 1962
VENKATLAL BALDEOJI MAHAJAN Appellant
V/S
KANHIYALAL JANKIDAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The trial Judge passed a preliminary decree to that effect, but the first appellate Court has reversed it on the ground that the suit is barred by time and also there have been laches on the part of the plaintiff.

(2.) VENKAT La! plaintiff, Kanhaiyalal s/o Jankidaa defendant No. 1 and two others, namely, Hiralal and Ramlal were the original partners of Shri Niwas Gopal Cotton ginning Factory, Soyat, under a registered agreement 9s ' partnership dated august 14, 1929. The last mentioned two partners, Hiralal and Ramlal having died, their heirs are defendants Nos. 2 to 12 in this suit which was instituted by Venkat lal on June 27, 1952. Kanhaiyalal s/o Jankidas is the only contesting defendant. He resisted the suit on the ground that since Samvat year 1990 he alone is in possession of the business. Ha also contended that the deed of 14-8-29 was not a partnership deed and, even if it was, the partnership was dissolved on the death of ramlal. Moreover, during the period of his long possession he constructed buildings, laid gardens and worked the factory without any interference or intervention by any of the defendants so that they were estopped by conduct and were guilty of laches.

(3.) BEFORE me the nature of the deed of 14-8-29 has not been disputed. It is undoubtedly a deed creating partnership. Further, it contains a clause that on the death of any of the initial partners his heirs would automatically become partners in the firm. The limited question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs suit has been rightly dismissed because of the first defendant's long possession for about 19 years. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court applying the principle of laches and also Article 120 of the Limitation Act, computed the period of limitation from 1933, and non-suited the plaintiff.