BRIJ MOHAN Vs. N V VAKHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil regular first appeal by the plaintiff Brij Mohan in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, which has been dismissed by the trial court on a preliminary point.

(2.) THE short facts relevant for purposes of the present appeal may be stated as follows: There was a business known as Jem Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works at Jaipur, which was originally carried on by the defendant N. V. Vakharia, and both the plaintiff Brij Mohan and defendant No. 2 Mohandas worked as his agents. On the 12th March, 1958, an agreement was entered into between all these three persons whereby they formed a partnership. This deed of partnership is at page 59 of the paper-book. The partnership took over the entire business which was earlier carried on by Vakharia, and it was inter alia stipulated that the plaintiff and defendant Mohandas would have a one-fourth share each in the profits and losses of the partnership business while Vakharia would have the remaining half. The only other candition which it is necessary to mention in this connection is that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- standing, to the credit of Vakharia, according to the final balance-sheet as prepared on the 20th March, 1958, was to be treated as his investment in the partnership business while a like sum of Rs. 10,000/- was to be treated as the capital investment of each of the other two partners. Defendant Vakharia 'alone held a licence under the rules framed under the medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (Act No. 16 of 1955, hereinafter called the Act of 1955), and it is not disputed before us that this licence was neither amended nor a fresh one obtained in the name of the partnership for carrying on the business in question. Differences seem to have arisen between the partners some time in the middle of 1959 which eventually resulted in the institution of the present suit. Defendant Mohandas did not file any written statement and it was Vakharia who alone resisted the suit. He raised a number of pleas and the only one with which we are concerned at the present stage was that the partnership was illegal, and, therefore, no suit was maintainable for its dissolution and rendition of accounts. The trial court upheld this plea and dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) THE only question for determination in these circumstances is whether the finding of the trial court that the partnership was illegal and therefore a suit for its dissolution and rendition of accounts could not be brought is well founded. Our answer to this question is: Yes.