LAXMIBAI Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Ro-shanlal filed a suit in the Court of Mun-siff, Abu Road against Laxminarain for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.

(2.) IT may be mentioned here that Laxminarain died during the pendency of this appeal and is now represented by his widow Smt. Laxmi Bai and his son Madan lal, who have been substituted as appellants in his place.

(3.) ROSHANLAL's case was that he and Laxminarain entered into a partnership orally at Abu Road on 23-6-1956 for taking building contract from the Western Railway, and it was agreed that the partnership business would be carried in the name of laxminarain Rama Nand in which name the defendant had already taken contracts as an approved contractor of the Western Railway. The terms of the contract of partnership are alleged to be that both the partners would share profits and losses half to half and would get interest on the amount invested by them in the partnership business at the rate of 6% per annum. It was alleged that contract for construction of Selavi Railway Station and staff quarters as well as for construction of Dam near Kivarli was taken by the firm and on the completion of the contract the defendant Laxminarain withdrew the amount of the bills submitted by the firm, but did not render accounts of the partnership business to the plaintiff. It was stated that contract for no other construction was taken. The plaintiffs case is that he served a notice on the defendant Laxmi Narain to render accounts but the latter neither gave any reply nor rendered the accounts. Consequently, the present suit was filed on 24-9-1960 for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts. The suit was resisted by the defendant mainly on the ground that no oral agreement of the alleged partnership between the parties ever took place. The defendant pleaded that he alone had taken the said contract and the plaintiff had agreed to finance him in this contract. In other words it was pleaded that there was only a relation of debtor and creditor between the defendant and the plaintiff. The defendant's case is that the plaintiff was employed by him to look after the work on his behalf on payment of a lump sum of Rs. 150/ -. Alternatively, the defendant also pleaded that in case the plaintiff succeeded in proving the alleged partnership the same was illegal and void being in contravention of the general Conditions* of contracts laid down by the Western Railway.