BAIJNATH Vs. CHHOTE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been very ably argued by Dr. Kailash Nath Katju, but notwithstanding his able arguments we remained unconvinced.

(2.) The suit of the plaintiff-appellants for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts has been dismissed by the Courts below on the ground that the partnership, the dissolution of which was prayed for by the plaintiffs, had been dissolved more than three years prior to the institution of the suit giving rise to the present appeal, and as such the suit was time barred. The trial Court after pointing out that no partnership business was done, after 25 January 1920, on which date the servants of the firm were dismissed, and the rent of the shops in which the partnership business was carried on was paid, and accounts were finally closed, and that on 20 March 1920 every thing was finally disposed of, and the pressing machine had also been removed, and after pointing out the other facts that led to the conclusion that the partners had decided to discontinue the business of partnership and to terminate the partnership, came to the conclusion that the partnership in question was dissolved on or about the e January, 1920, and as the present suit was filed in April 1923, the suit was time barred.

(3.) The lower appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court has observed that the partners knew that there was loss in the dealings in 1920 and it was, therefore, natural that they thought it prudent to stop the business. In my opinion this amounts to a dissolution of the partnership.