ABDUL WAHAB SAHIB Vs. MROKIA BIBI SAHIBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises out of a report submitted by the Official Referee in pursuance of an order dated the 8 of April 1921. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a dissolution of partnership and for the taking of the partnership accounts, the case for the plaintiff being that he and his father, the deceased Hajee Abdul Ghani Sahib, were trading in partnership from the 1 of September 1015 on the terms mentioned in the plaint. The defendants are sued as the legal representatives of the deceased Hajee Abdul Ghani Sahib. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 filed written statements denying that the partnership was carried on on the terms mentioned in the plaint and alleged that the plaintiff worked in the business only up to the e October, 1917 and that he had overdrawn his share of the: profits. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement putting the plaintiff to the proof of his claim. The 4 defendant is the plaintiff himself and is on record as ore of the legal representatives of his father.

(2.) The following issues were settled: (1) What were the terms of the partnership between the plaintiff and the deceased Hajee Abdul Ghani Sahib? (2) What was the duration of the said partnership? (3) Are the sums referred to in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaint assets of the partnership? (4) What are the shares of the parties as heirs in the estate of the deceased Hajee Abdul Ghani Sahib? (5) To what, relief are the parties entitled?

(3.) When the suit came for trial, Coutts-Trotter, J., without determining any of the matters in controversy in the suit passed the following order on the 8 of April 1921: "The whole case is referred to the Official Referee to determine what share the plaintiff had in the business carried on by the deceased Hajee Abdul Ghani Sahib and having determined that, to take a full account as in an ordinary partnership action and report to this Court." The 1 defendant states that this order was passed by consent of all parties, but this is not admitted by the plaintiff nor does tire order purport to have been passed by consent. In pursuance of this order what is called an interim decree was drawn up by the office.