P L S P MUTHIAH CHETTY THROUGH HIS SON AND AUTHORISED AGENT PALANIAPPA CHETTY Vs. KRVRVEERAPPA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out. of the same original suit and in each appeal there is a memorandum of objections. Appeal No. 340 of 1924 is by the plaintiff and the memorandum of objections is by the 1 respondent who is the 1 defendant. Appeal No. 204 of 1925 is filed by defendants 1 and 7 and the memorandum of objections is preferred by the plaintiff who is the 1 respondent.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated as follows: Defendants 1 to 3 and the father of the 4th defendant entered into a partnership for carrying on a money-lending business at Harit Buntar in the Federated Malay States under the name and style of R.M.V.R.A.M. This was on 23rd March 1914. Four partners had equal shares in it. The 4 defendant's father died in August 1916; but the business was continued with the 4 defendant as a partner in his place by the consent of all the partners. In or about April 1917 a new partnership was constituted by taking in two new partners, defendants 5 and 6. In the new partnership the 1 defendant's share was the largest and the shares of the 5 and 6 defendants were smaller than the others. The 7 defendant is a son of the 1 defendant, the 8 defendant is a son of the 4th, the 9th defendant is a son of the 6 defendant and the 10 defendant is a son of the 5th. On the 25 January, 1919, the 3 defendant executed Ex. C in favour of the present plaintiff purporting to transfer his interest in the partnership. He informed the firm of the fact of transfer by two letters, Ex. E, dated the 28 of January 1919 sent directly and Ex. D (1) handed over to the plaintiff and forwarded by him with Ex. L. Ex. H is a hundi for Rs. 16,500 which was the consideration for the assignment. The 1 defendant having learnt of Ex. E replied by a registered letter Ex. F dated 4 March 1919. In it he says that he had written to Arunachalam the 6 defendant who was then the local agent to close the business at the termination of his agency and wind up the firm and not to enter into any new transactions but to make the necessary collections and disbursements for winding up the firm. The plaintiff addressed Ex. L on 16 March, 1919 to the 6 defendant. Ex. D(l) was sent as an enclosure with this letter. Ex. G was a letter by the 3 defendant to the 1 defendant in which he acknowledges the receipt of Ex. F. Meanwhile the 3 defendant's son raised a dispute about the validity of the assignment by the 3 defendant and he issued through his vakil the notice Ex. I contesting the validity of the assignment. He also issued a similar letter to the 4th defendant--Ex. VI. Ex. II is a letter addressed by the plaintiff to the 1 defendant in which he requests that he should be taken as a partner in the firm and that the firm should not stop business merely because the 3 defendant's share was transferred to him. In September 1919 a new firm was formed by defendants 1 and 6 and Ex. N is the power-of-attorney executed by the 1 defendant in favour of the 6 defendant. Ex. J is a registered deed of assignment confirming Ex. C which was not registered. In March 1920 the plaintiff's agent in the Federated Malay States got his solicitors, Messrs. Gibb and Hope to issue the notice Ex. III to the 6 defendant demanding him to render an account of the profits of the firm. Ex. III-A is the reply to Ex. III by Messrs. Donaldson and Burkinshaw, Solicitors of the 6 defendant. In this letter they refer the plaintiff's solicitors to the 1 defendant on the ground that the 6th defendant was only accountable to him. They also refer to the fact that the 3 defendant's son raised a dispute as to the assignment. On this ground they refused to recognise the plaintiff's right to demand an account. Ex. IV is the reply to Ex. III-A in which Messrs. Gibb and Hope say that they had also written to the 1 defendant. They also intimate their intention of filing a plaint and request the addressees to make arrangements for accepting service at Perak. Ex. IV-A is the reply to Ex. IV. It says that Veerappa Chetty (the 1st defendant) does not admit that the plaintiff has any rights. It is dated 31 March 1920. There is no further correspondence up to December. On 6 December Messrs. Donaldson and Burkinshaw addressed the letter Ex. V to the plaintiff and the 3 defendant and to his son. In this letter they say : "The firm has now been wound up and the accounts are ready. Veerappa Chetty, the managing partner, desires to close the matter and pay out the sums due". They then refer to the fact of receipt of notice of assignment from the plaintiff and notice of objection from the 3 defendant's son. They also say that unless the disputes are settled by agreement or otherwise payments cannot be made. The present suit was filed on 20th January, 1922. Meanwhile the 3 defendant's son himself filed a suit O.S. No. 42 of 1919. That suit was finally settled by reference to arbitrators and their award in August 1922. Under this award the 3 defendant's right to assign was recognised by his son. In the written statement of the defendants they plead that there was a settlement of the accounts of the partnership on or about 29 March, 1920. On the basis of this settlement a certain sum of money was allotted to the 3 defendant and the basis of the settlement was also accepted by defendants 2 and 5. The Subordinate Judge finding that the settlement is not binding on the plaintiff, has gone into the accounts himself and found that in addition to the assets found according to the settlement certain other sums under various headings were due to the partnership and the plaintiff's share in such additional sum was found to be 1,380 dollars. The first item of dispute between the parties is whether the plaintiff is entitled to this additional sum.

(3.) Another question in the case is, what is the rate of conversion of dollars into the British Indian currency. As the exchange was varying between January 1919 and April, 1925, the date of the final decree, this question turns upon the date when the conversion into British Indian currency should be made. The dollar reached its lowest value on 11 March, 1920 when 100 dollars were equivalent to Rs. 95 and on 29 March, 1920 it was Rs. 99-8-0. The Subordinate Judge held that the date of the final decree should be adopted as the date of conversion. These two questions are the subject of Appeal No. 204. The appellants (defendants) contend that the settlement of 29 March 1920 should be held to be binding on the plaintiff and that the same date ought to be adopted as the date of conversion into British Indian currency.