AHINSA BIBI Vs. ABDUL KADER SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is alleged in the plaint that five persons, namely, the first defendant; one Chanda Mean, the deceased husband of the first plaintiff; one Pacha Mean, the deceased father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, and husband of fifth defendant; the sixth defendant, and one Mathari Bavudin Saheb, father of defendants Nos. 7 to 10 and husband of eleventh defendant, were carrying on partnership business at Ambur, the first-named three persons being brothers and the last named two being their brothers-in-law, and that on the death of Chanda Mean Saheb in August 1891 it was agreed that the first defendant and the other surviving partners should use the amount of capital and profits due to the share of Chanda Mean Saheb in carrying on the business of partnership, that interest thereon should be paid to plaintiffs at one per cent. per mensem, that the total amount due to the plaintiffs should be settled as per accounts and paid over to them on demand, and that the partnership business was accordingly carried on even after the death of Chanda Mean.

(2.) The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 12 to 18 are the legal representatives of the deceased Chanda Mean Saheb, including the legal representatives of a deceased heir of Chanda Mean. Plaintiffs bring this suit for taking an account of the profits of the partner-shin which was dissolved by the death of Chanda Mean in August 1891 and for recovering the share due to him in such profits with subsequent interest at 12 per cent. after giving credit for sums paid to first plaintiff, since the death of her husband, oil account of interest. On behalf of the contesting defendants it is contended that the business carried on by the first defendant was his sole and exclusive business, that neither Chanda Mean Saheb nor any other person was a partner therein, that the agreement alleged to have been made with the plaintiffs on the death of Chanda Mean Saheb is false and that the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

(3.) The District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the first defendant's business and trade was not carried on in partnership with Chanda Mean Saheb and others, that the agreement alleged to have been made between the plaintiffs and the first defendant on the death of Chanda Mean Saheb is not true, and that the suit is barred by the law of limitation.