MUSAMMAT UREKHAN KUER Vs. MUSAMMAT KABUTRI

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 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 January 20, 1923, was executed between the parties who became partners in losses and gains sharing equally. 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 c to the plaintiff. After many fruitless requests Ram Khelawan ultimately, on March 25, 1929, rendered his first and only statement of account, a copy of which was filed with the plaint and since April 16, 1929, he repudiated partnership and began to assert, ah exclusive title to the business. The accounts rendered are said by the plaintiff to be incorrect and she starred criminal proceedings against Ram Khelwan which were, however, unsuccessful. 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 January 20, 1923 to date. The plaintiff for the purpose of jurisdiction valued her suit under Section 7(IV) of the Court Fees Act at Rs. 1,000 paying a court-fee of Rs. 97-8-0 en that value.

(2.) 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 (Mogadma haza qabil samayet Adalat haza ke nahin hai) and the suit is bad for not impleading Shamlal Sahu and Chandan Ram Sahu (persons whom the defendant alleged to be existing partne is in the defendant's business).

(3.) The suit came on for trial before the Munsif who held that Earn Khelawan was liable to account. Further he held that the defendant's widow was liable to render accounts as the legal representative of Ham Khelawan but that her liability would be limited to the assets of the deceased in her hands, At this stage it may be pointed out that the only liability of the widow is that she must disclose all books and documents in her possession or power and that she is liable on the taking of the account for the amount of money, if any, wrongfully withheld from the plaintiff to the extent of the assets of the deceased in her hands. The plea by the defendant that the suit was bad because of the failure to join the plaintiff's two sons was overruled and it is not insisted upon before us. The Munsif concluded his judgment by stating that an objection to the valuation of the suit had been taken at the time of the trial. It was said that according to the statement in the plaint the suit should have been valued at more than Rs. 1,000 and hence that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Munsif overruled this plea and stated that there was nothing in the plaint to show that this amount had been arbitrarily or inadequately fixed or that the amount ultimately found to be due would exceed Es. 1,000.