GHANASYAM DAS Vs. BAJRANGLAL AGARWALLA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge L.A.D. by which the order of the Munsif of Barpeta granting plaintiff a preliminary decree for rendition of partnership accounts was reversed and plaintiff's suit dismissed. The plaintiff, who has appealed to this Court, instituted a suit for settlement of accounts of a partnership business between him and the defendants. His case was that on the 1st day of July 1946, he and the defendants entered into an agreement of partnership with the object of doing hardware business. According to the agreement, Ext. 2, defendant 1, Bajranglal Agarwalla, representative of the firm Narsingdas Srilal, was to finance the business. Plaintiff Ghanasyam Das (appellant) and Madhusudan Pas, 'pro forma' defendant 2, were to try to secure orders from the Government of Assam. The business was to be jointly supervised by all. The plaintiff and defendant 2 Madhusudan Das were given ¼ th share each in the profits. Defendant 1 was to have 1/2 share.

(2.) THE 'pro forma' defendant 2 supported the plaintiff -appellant. Defendant 1 resisted the claim. He admitted that an agreement of partnership was executed between the parties in the case but pleaded that this agreement was not given effect to and the partnership formed was not registered. He denied plaintiff's securing orders from the Government and alleged that the plaintiff and defendant 2 "were frustrated in obtaining" them. He further denied the truth of the allegation that he got any orders from the Government through the recommendation or the efforts of the plaintiff and defendant 2. He claimed to have secured necessary orders as a result of his own efforts after about a year from the date of the agreement. He further pleaded that the agreement of partnership was without consideration. It had not been acted upon and the plaintiff and the 'pro forma' defendant 2 had not even supervised the joint business.

(3.) THE learned Munsiff was of the view that the partnership agreement was duly registered. A partnership came into existence. It had not been dissolved. The business in the name of the firm continued. The burden, in these circumstances, was on the defendant to show that the plaintiff had ceased to be a member of the firm and was debarred from participating in the profits and losses of the firm. His answer to the question raised was that the main defendant had failed hopelessly to prove that the plaintiff had violated the terms of the partnership agreement and therefore was not entitled to participate in the profits or losses of the business. This was the finding on Issues 5 and 7 reproduced above.