K A DAWOOD SAHIB Vs. VASHEIK MOHIDEEN SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent on the original side of this Court. The appellant was the first defendant. The suit was for the taking of the accounts of a partnership between the plaintiff and the first defendant.

(2.) It appears that the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into partnership on the 14 April, 1920. On the 10 April, 1931, the plaintiff's father died, which meant in law the dissolution of the partnership. The partnership business was, however, carried on by the plaintiff (who took the place of his deceased father), and the first defendant. This partnership carried on business until 1933 when the first defendant gave notice to the plaintiff dissolving the partnership. When the original partnership was formed, that is, the partnership between the plaintiff's father and the first defendant, it was agreed that they should share equally in the profits. They had each contributed a sum of Rs. 250 towards the capital. The plaintiff's father, however, was not satisfied with a division of profits on this basis, and on the 16 November, 1922, it was agreed between the plaintiff's father and the first defendant that the plaintiff's father should be deemed to have a share of 9 1/2 annas and the first defendant a share of 6 1/2 annas. This, of course, meant sharing both the losses and profits in these proportions. At an early stage in the original partnership, partnership moneys were advanced on mortgage. Two sums were in fact so advanced on the same property--a sum of Rs. 2,500 and another of Rs. 1,900. The mortgagors were unable to redeem the mortgages and were eventually compelled to convey the mortgaged property to the two partners in consideration of the mortgage debt plus a small monetary payment. The learned trial Judge gave the decree asked for and held that the profits and losses should be shared between the plaintiff and the first defendant on the basis of 9 1/2 annas and 6 1/2 annas respectively and that they were entitled to share in these proportions the property which they had bought. The appeal is concerned with these findings.

(3.) The appellant says that in regard to the business subsequent to April, 1931, the account should be taken on the basis that the parties were entitled to share equally in the partnership profits and that the house property also should be divided on this basis. The learned Advocate for the appellant rightly abandoned the contention with regard to the house on having his attention drawn to the provisions of Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, and, therefore, it is only necessary to discuss whether he is entitled to succeed on the other point.