DEOKI PRASAD RAJGARHIAH Vs. ANAR DAI PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1986 passed by the learned First Addl. Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, in Title Suit No. 170/80, 108/83 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of account thereof has been decreed with cost on contest against defendants No. 1 and 4, and, against rest ex parte, but without cost. In this appeal, the sole plaintiff Srikrishna Poddar was arrayed as respondent No. 1. However, he died during the pendency of the appeal. Consequently, his heirs and legal representatives have been substituted as respondents 1 series.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff who was respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, was that some time in 1958, the plaintiff and defendants 1, 3 and 4 as well as the father of defendant No. 2, namely, Chiranjilall Sonthalia entered into a partnership agreement for carrying some construction work under the name and style of M/s. New India Builders having its office at Calcutta and Ranchi. Consequenetly, the partnership agreement was executed between the partners on 27-11-1958. However, a new partnership was constituted in the year 1961 under the same name and style for the same purpose by inducting defendants No. 5 to 7 as its partners and a fresh partnership agreement was executed between them on 15-11-1961. In the year 1962, a new partner was also included in the partnership as ninth partner by executing a deed of alteration. According to the plaintiff, the partnership business was building construction work under National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. (N. C. D. C.) at Bankisura Kocher in Madhya Pradesh and at some other places. According to the altered partnership agreement, the share of the plaintiff which was initially 25% was reduced to 121/2% in view of the induction of defendant No. 8 as ninth partner. The management of the work at site and the execution of the contract work was the responsibility of the first, second, third and fifth partners of the firm. Books of A/cs. were to be maintained and kept at the head office at Calcutta and weekly statements of accounts were required to be sent to Calcutta as well as Ranchi offices from time to time. In the partnership agreement there was also a provision for remuneration to the working partners. Further case of the plaintiff was that after the death of Chiranji Lall Sonthalia, one of the partners, some disputes and differences arose between the partners respecting the accounts of the partnership business. As the plaintiff was not paid his due share in the profit, he served defendants No. 1 to 4 with notice to render accounts; they failed. Therefore, the suit was instituted for dissolution of the partnership constituted in terms of the partnership agreement dated 15-11-1961 as modified on 20-12-1962 and rendition of accounts thereof.

(3.) Only defendants 1 and 4 appeared and contested the suit by filing a joint written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act, Law of Limitation and principles of estoppel and acquiescence; and that the court at Ranchi had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Their further plea was that the partnerships of 1958 and 1961 were dissolved by mutual consent of the partners and accounts thereof were taken; and that in the year 1962 a fresh partnership was constituted between the partners for duration of the completion of work at Bankisura Kocher. And after termination of the partnership, profit and loss accounts were prepared and shares divided amongst the partners. Since after dissolution of the partnership of 1962, the plaintiff demanded from them a huge money on account of his share by mailing a letter dated 5-10-1967, they denied to oblige him. Hence, he instituted the suit with altogether false and baseless allegations. On these grounds, they sought dismissal of the suit.