KARTAR SINGH AND SHER SINGH Vs. HARCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARTAR Singh and Prem Singh, two brothers, entered into partnership and started business of commission agents under the style of 'prem Singh Kartar singh'. Under the partnership agreement, the accounts were to be maintained by prem Singh, who was in charge of the account books. It was agreed between the parties that on the death of either of the partners, the partnership would not be dissolved but the heirs of the deceased partner would be substituted in place of the deceased as partners. Prem Singh died on November, 1957. Consequently, his heirs became partners in his place. On 4-2-1958, the partnership was dissolved and a new firm came into being on 5-2-1958 to carry on business under the style of 'kartar Singh Balbir Singh'. The heirs of the deceased started another firm on 52-1958 under the name of 'prem Singh Harcharan Singh'.

(2.) ON the above facts, Kartar Singh instituted the suit on 4-2-1961 against harcharan Singh and other heirs of the deceased partner, Prem Singh, for rendition of accounts of the dissolve firm 'prem Singh Kartar Singh'. The defendants resisted the suit, alleging that the partnership had dissolved on 3-111957 by operation of law, i. e. on the death of Prem Singh, and that, consequently, the suit was time-barred. It was denied that there was any agreement between the partners, Prem Singh and Kartar Singh, that on the death of a partner his heirs would be substituted in his place. The parties went to trial on these issues: 1. Whether there was a firm known as Prem Singh Kartar Singh. If so, what were the terms between the partners? 2. Whether there was any agreement between the partners to this effect that on death of a partner, his legal representatives become partners. If so, what is its effect? 3. Whether the suit is within time? 4. Whether the account books of the firm are with defendants, and they are liable to render accounts? 5. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs?

(3.) UNDER issue No. 1, it was found that there was a contractual partnership carrying on business udner the style of 'prem Singh' and that Prem Singh and kartar Singh were its partners, sharing profits of the business equally. Issues 4 and 5 were decided against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Issues 2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff. In the result, the suit was dismissed as time-barred. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, exercising enhanced appellate powers at Ferozepore. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.