MT UREHAN KUER Vs. MTKABUTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are as follows: The plaintiff is the widow of one Ramprit Sahu. The defendant was originally one Ram Khelawan, but he died during the pendency of the suit and his widow was substituted in his place. The plaint alleges that the late Ramprit had a gola business, that is to say, a warehouse to which merchants brought their goods for sale (paying the proprietor a commission on transactions) to which business the plaintiff succeeded on his death. The plaintiff finding that she could not manage the business by herself took into partnership the late Ram Khelawan. A deed dated 20 January 1923 was executed between the parties who became partners in losses and gains sharing equally.

(2.) Furthermore each advanced a sum of Rs. 5,000 in addition to the capital already invested in the business. The sole custody of the business was left to Ram Khelawan and it was provided that in each year he would render accounts to the plaintiff. After many fruitless requests Ram Khelawan ultimately on 25 March 1929, rendered his first and only statement of account a copy of which was filed with the plaint and since 16 April 1929, he repudiated partnership and began to assert an exclusive title to the business. The accounts rendered are said by the plaintiff to be incorrect and she started criminal proceedings against Ram Khelawan which were however unsuccessful.

(3.) The plaintiff sued for dissolution of partnership and asked that the business might be wound up and that the defendant should be ordered to deliver accounts from 20 January 1923 to date. The plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction valued her suit under Section 7(iv), Court fees Act, at Rs. 1,000, paying a court-fee of Rs. 97-8-0 on that value. The material part of the defence with which we are concerned is contained in the first two paragraphs of the written statement which are as follows: 1. The suit is not maintainable in the manner in which the plaintiff has instituted it. 2. The suit is not fit to be heard by this Court (moqadama haza qabil samayel Adalathaza ke nahin hai) and the suit is bad for not impleading Sham Lal Sahu and Chandan Ram Sahu (persons whom the defendant alleged to be existing partners in the defendant's business.) 3. The suit came on for trial before the Munsif who held that Ram Khelawan was liable to account. Further he held that the defendant's widow was liable to render accounts as the legal representative of Ram Khelawan, but that her liability would be limited to the assets of the deceased in her hands.