PRAVASH CHANDRA Vs. FATE CHAND JAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the 2nd Defendant against a judgment of reversal by the learned Subordinate Judge, Berhampur, dated November 6th, 1951, decreeing the Plaintiff's suit preliminarily for accounts from 1940 till October 24, 1946.

(2.) THE Plaintiff commenced a suit for accounts of a partnership firm, Pravash Chandra Kanti Chandra which was dissolved on October 24, 1946. Although Plaintiff -2 Kanti Chandra Jain was a partner of the firm, Pravash Chandra Kanti Chandra with Defendant -2 Pravash Chandra, the suit was filed on behalf of six Plaintiffs; the other five Plaintiffs being his father, Plaintiff -I, and his three minor brothers Plaintiffs 3 to 6 represented by their next friend, the Plaintiff -1. Defendant -l is the father of Defendant -2 who is his adopted son. The whole case of the Plaintiff is that a partnership was formed between Plaintiff -2 and Defendant -2 in about 1940. It is an admitted fact that the parties to this litigation are Marwaris and both the families are trading families. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 who is a capitalist carrying on business in various places all over India wanted to open a shop at Berhampur in the name of his adopted son, Pravash Chandra, Defendant -2, and the son of the 1st Plaintiff (Plaintiff -2), and with that end in view a shop was opened in 1940 on partnership basis under the name and style of Pravash Chandra Kanti Chandra, This partnership firm was registered under the Indian Partnership Act and Plaintiff -2 was the working partner thereof. According to the plaint averments this partnership was one at will. There was an agreement that the profit should be divided between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in the ratio of t : i. Doe to certain misunderstanding the partnership stood dissolved on October 24, 1946, and Defendant -2 remained in charge of the stock -in trade and the account books of the firm. Defendant -2 did not pay the share of the profits of this business to the Plaintiffs and accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed the suit on October 17, 1947, for a formal declaration for dissolution of the partnership, and for rendition of accounts. They also prayed for a preliminary decree for accounts and for ascertainment of the profits by a commissioner.

(3.) THE sale contention of Mr. H. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Appellant, there was no partnership in law between the second (Plaintiff said the Defendant No. 2) Or the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the profits of this business.