MOHRILAL Vs. SHRI BALLABH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil regular second appeal by the defendant Mohrilal in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, which was dismissed by the trial court but on appeal that decision was reversed and the case was remanded back with a direction that a preliminary decree for the taking of the accounts be passed and the suit be decided according to law. The material facts are these:

(2.) THE plaintiff Shri Ballabh and his brother Ram Raghunath carried on business in the name and style of Shri Ballabh Ram Raghunath at Sambhar. The defendant mohrilal also carried on business in the name of Shivnarain Mohrilal in the same town. On Jeth Sudi 6 Smt. 2006 equivalent to the 13th May, 1950, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a partnership agreement by which they agreed to carry on the business of sale and purchase of gur, sugar, potatoes, tobacco, etc. It is unnecessary for the purposes of the present appeal to set out all the conditions agreed to between the parties at the time of the agreement, and it should suffice to mention that the partnership business was to consist of the sale and purchase of tobacco among other articles referred to above and that such business shall be conducted in the name of the partnership which was agreed to be styled as Ramavatar Company. The agreement of partnership is Ex. 1. It may be pointed out at this place that it seems to have been agreed between the parties that the work of sale and purchase of the various commodities was to be conducted by the defendants and that they would maintain the day to day accounts in a Kachhi Rokar from which the same will be entered every evening in a Pacci Rokar to be maintained by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs as they held no licence for doing wholesale business in the sale and purchase of tobacco, the business in that commodity was carried on by the defendant under a licence dated the 16th February, 1951, which he held for the purpose under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and further that the plaintiffs were content to leave this business to be done by the defendant as the latter held a licence in his own name and such business could not be done unless one was a licence holder for the same. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that the partnership account between the parties with reference to all other articles had been settled except in the case of tobacco account. They called upon the defendant to render it to them but without any purpose, and, therefore, they have been compelled to file the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for the dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in respect of the tobacco business.

(3.) DEFENDANT admitted that he had entered into partnership with the plaintiffs by means of the agreement Ex. 1 but pleaded that inasmuch as the partnership did not have or take any licence for dealing in the wholesale sale and purchase of tobacco, business in that commodity was not carried on in partnership but belonged to him exclusively. He raised some other pleas also but with those we are not concerned for the purpose of the present appeal.