BANKEY LAL Vs. NATTHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondents for setting aside a deed of sale executed by defendant 2, Shyam Lal, father of the plaintiff, in favour of Nattha Ram, defendant 1. The admitted facts are that Chiranji Lal, grandfather of the plaintiff and father of defendant 2 carried on the business of publisher and bookseller in conjunction with Nattha Ram, defendant 1. On the death of Chiranji Lal the partnership was maintained by Nattha Ram along with Shyam Lal. At the end of that time Shyam Lal having no inclination to continue the partnership arranged with Nattha Ram to terminate the same and divide some of the assets and sell other of the assets to Nattha Ram. The plaintiff's contention is that the disposal of the assets by Shyam Lal was for a price and consideration which was prejudicial to his interest as minor son of Shyam Lal.

(2.) The lower Court dismissed the suit. It held that nothing in Hindu law could compel Shyam Lal to continue the partnership merely because he had a minor son who along with himself, was interested in his (Shyam Lal s) share of the assets of the business. This decision of the lower Court has been impugned by counsel for the appellant but, in my opinion, on no valid ground. The manager of a joint Hindu family who is partner in a business cannot be required to continue the partnership when he no longer desires to do so and especially when, as in this case, he considers that he is incapable of giving assistance as partner. It may be remarked that in the plaint the allegation was made by the plaintiff that Shyam Lal was a man Without capacity or ability. This admission in itself furnishes a solid ground for Shyam Lal deciding not to continue the partnership. There were two houses among the assets of the partnership. When the partnership was dissolved between defendant 2 and defendant 1, the more valuable of the houses went to Shyam Lal and the other to Nattha Ram. A value was put on each house and the difference was taken into account in the disposal of the other assets of defendant 2 to defendant 1. It is said by the plaintiff-appellant's counsel that the sale of the other assets to Nattha Ram was for an insufficient amount. I consider it open to doubt whether when once it is shown that a sale by a Hindu father and manager is necessary, any suit will lie against the vendee on the ground of insufficiency of price inasmuch as the father is empowered to make arrangements for the sale and the vendee can scarcely be expected to see that the price is inadequate. At any rate it is clear to me that no such suit would lie against the vendee in the absence of fraud or collusion being proved against the vendee. No such fraud or collusion has been proved in this case.

(3.) The main point made by counsel for the appellant is that in the sale-deed which, it is desired to set aside, various mortgage bonds were included as sold to defendant 1. The rate of interest borne by these bonds is not entered in the sale- deed. The failure to enter the particulars of interest does not amount to any fraudulent concealment. Appellant's counsel suggests that the failure to enter this rate of interest amounted to fraudulent concealment. He says that if this rate of interest were shown it might be obvious that these bonds were handed over by defendant 2 to defendant 1 for an insufficient consideration. It appears to me sufficiently clear that these mortgage bonds must have been registered and it was easy for any person who was interested in the matter to get copies of these bonds and find out the interest. The mere fact that the sale-deed did not go into the particulars of the interest accruing on these mortgage bonds did not amount to any fraudulent concealment. The consideration for these mortgage bonds was, it appears, the amount due as principal on them according to the bonds. Nattha Ram would have to spend money in suing on them. It is conceivable that although they were secured, the security might in some cases be inadequate. It was open to the appellant to produce in Court the mortgage bonds in order to show the interest due. He did not think it desirable to do so. In these circumstances I would hold that no insufficiency of price for these bonds is proved and that certainly no such insufficiency is proved as to justify the conclusion that the sale by defendant 1 to defendant 2 was fraudulent or collusive. We have to look at the state of affairs at the time of the date of the sale. It seems obvious that no outsider would have been likely to give to Shyam Lal for his and his son's share in the assets of the partnership, dissolved or not dissolved, as good a price as was given by defendant 1. Defendant 1 was continuing the business and obviously the stock, the book debts and the good will would be more valuable to him than to an outsider. No attempt has been made to prove that these assets would have fetched a larger sum if offered to any one else and the contrary seems to me to be a certainty. This being so, it cannot be said that the sale was for an insufficient sum, and the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed. I would note that the plaintiff asks for compensation from defendant 1 in respect of moveable property purchased by him from defendant 2 and disposed of to others. In my opinion Hindu law would not afford any such relief. Whether an action in tort would lie is also doubtful, but it is certain that it would only lie on the ground of collusion or fraud by the vendee. None such has been proved.