SUALAL Vs. RAM NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for dissolution of partnership and taking of partnership account. Respondent Ram Narayan alleged in the plaint filed by him in the Court of Munsif, Kekri, on 1-6-61 that he and the appellant defendant Sualal had entered into a partnership on 27-9-58 to run a load lorry on hire and purchased truck No. 644 for Rs. 3,600/- for this purpose. It was alleged that each of the partners had subscribed Rs. 1,800/- for the purchase of the truck. The terms of the partnership, according to the plaintiff, were that each of the partners would have half share in the profits and losses of the firm and that the accounts of the partnership would be kept by the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff went on to state that he had further spent Rs. 2,484/8/-in this partnership business and the defendant had wrongfully stopped running of the truck as a result of which the firm was being deprived of an income of Rs. 40/-per day. After serving a registered notice by post on the defendant he filed the present suit praying that the partnership may be deemed to have been dissolved on 2-3-60 and the suit for accounts be decreed.

(2.) THE defendant admitted the partnership in his written statement, but pleaded that the truck had been purchased by him alone for Rs. 3,600/- and the plaintiff had not contributed any amount towards the purchase of the truck. He also denied the plaintiff's allegations that the plaintiff had spent Rs. 2,484/8/- or any other sum during the course of the partnership business. After recording the evidence led by the parties the learned Munsif by his judgment and decree dated 9-1-63 declared that the partnership shall be deemed to have been dissolved on 2-3-60 and that each of the parties had half share in the profits and losses of the firm. He also held that the accounts of the partnership firm were mostly kept by the defendant and he, therefore, directed the defendant to produce the accounts of the partnership within 15 days of the passing of the decree. THE plaintiff was also directed to produce whatever accounts of partnership he had with him. As regards the initial investment also his finding was that the plaintiff as well as the defendant had contributed Rs. 1,800/- each for the purchase of the truck and that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing that Rs. 750/- had been spent by him for repairs of the truck. He also appointed one Shri Rishi Kumar, Advocate, as a receiver for settling the accounts and to submit his report as to which party was liable to pay how much sum to the other? He was also directed to take the truck in his possession.