JUMMAN KHAN Vs. BHOOREY KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's application in revision.

(2.) Bhoorey Khan, opposite party No. 1, instituted the suit which has given rise to this revision for dissolution of partnership and ac-counts on the allegations that he and defendants I to 4 entered into a partnership for the purposes of manufacturing bangles at Firozabad and to carry on the business in the name and style of "Forward Glass Works"; that the partnership was at will and that later on defendant 4 retired from the partnership so that on the date of the suit the plaintiff and defendants l to 3 were the only partners of the partnership; that the plain-tiff's share in the partnership was 0-5-0 in the rupee; and that defendant 3 kept the cash and the accounts. The reliefs prayed for in the plaint were that the partnership be dissolved and the accounts of the partnership business be taken, and a decree for the amount found due to the plaintiff be passed in his favour. In para. 12 of the plaint, the plaintiff stated, "that the suit is valued at Rs. 2000 both for the purposes of jurisdiction and payment of court-fees." Defendants 2 and 3 denied that they were partners in the partnersbip. Jumman Khan, defendant 1, stated that 1949 he was the sole proprietor of the firm, Forward Glass Works, Firozabad and the plaintiff not a partner therein. He further pleaded the suit had been undervalued and the court paid was insufficient, and that it was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

(3.) After the institution of the suit a receiver was appointed to take charge of all the pro] ties belonging to the firm. One item of the fir; property consisting of bangles was made over the defendant Jumman Khan on a valuation Rs. 9000. The rest of the properties were valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 27,127, and by the defendant at Rs. 40,250. Thus, the partnership property Was admittedly worth more than Rs. 37,000 The learned Munsif held that the plaintiff's share being about one-fifth, the value of the assets his share would be Rs. 7514. He further held that in a suit for dissolution of partnership a for accounts the value for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction should be fixed at the value the plaintiff's share in the assets without taking into account the liabilities of the firm. In the result he ordered that the plaint be returned presentation to the proper Court.