MADAN LAL Vs. SHIV NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against whom the decree for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts has been passed by both the Courts below.

(2.) BOTH the plaintiff and the defendant started joint business of dal, oil and flour at Kanina Mandi on October 19, 1961 in the name and style of M/s. Siri Ram Chander Dal and Oil Mills. The partnership deed dated October 26, 1962, Exhibit P -2, was executed between the parties. The partnership was at will. The firm worked satisfactorily till 1968 -69 when differences arose between the partners on account of the mishandling of its capital. Consequently, vide document dated April 7, 1969, Exhibit P -1, the partnership was dissolved. According to the plaint, the business of the partnership was suspended in the year 1968 by the consent of the parties. The plaintiff filed the present suit on October 6, 1972, for the dissolution of the partnership arid rendition of accounts as the accounts of the firm were maintained by the defendant. In the written, statement, the defendant denied that he was in possession of the account bocks of the firm or that he, was liable to render the accounts to the plaintiff. According to him, the firm was dissolved on April 7, 1969, vide document, Exhibit P -1, and, therefore, the present suit was barred by time as the same was filed after more than three years of the execution of the said document. The main controversy between the parties was as to whether the suit was within time from the date of the execution of the document, Exhibit P -1. According to the defendant, by virtue of the said document, the firm stood dissolved whereas according to the plaintiff, the work of partnership was suspended Till the accounts were settled finally, the partnership continued and, therefore, the suit was filed within time. The trial Court negatived the contention raised on behalf of the defendant and accepted the one raised on behalf of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers affirmed the findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant, by document, Exhibit P -1, the partnership was put to an end and the business of the partnership was also closed. Only the winding up of the accounts thereof remained which was to be done later. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the suit for rendition of accounts could be filed within three years from April 7, 1969, when the firm was dissolved, as provided under Article 5 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter called the Act). In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Baijnath v. Chhote Lal : A.I.R. 1928 All. 58, and Saligram v. Rajnath : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1094. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondent submitted that by virtue of the document, Exhibit P -1, unless the accounts were settled, the partnership continued and, therefore, the suit was filed within time. In support of the contention, the learned counsel referred to Haramohan Poddar v. Sudarson Poddar : A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 538, Vazirbhai Sultanbhai v. Gadmal Nathmal : A.I.R. 1940 Bom.263, Sathappa v. Subrahmanyan : A.I.R. 1927 P.C. 70, Gundayya v. Siddappa : A.I.R. 1937 Mad. 599, and Pahloomal v. Paramanand, A.I.R 1933 Sind 121.