BABU ALIAS GOVINDDOSS KRISHNADOSS Vs. GOKULDOSS GOVARDHANDOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By my preliminary judgment, dated the 2nd May, 1928, I declared that the plaintiff was entitled to have an account taken of the affairs of the partnership as on the date of the death of his father, namely, the 13 August, 1908. After making that declaration, without forthwith referring the case to the Official Referee, I granted an adjournment at the request of the 6th defendant's counsel, who wanted time to consider his position in regard to his filing an appeal from my judgment. I understand that no appeal has been filed and I am now asked to deal with certain questions of accountability arising between the parties. The plaintiff's right would arise only if it be found that some amount is due to him; but all parties have desired me to first deal with these questions even before the accounts are taken. That means, of course, that the parties believe that the accounts, if gone into, will disclose that a substantial sum is due to the plaintiff. It is on this hypothesis that I am now dealing with the questions raised.

(2.) For ready reference, I reproduce a part of the pedigree set forth in my preliminary judgment.

(3.) I have held that the partnership consisted of Muralidas, Govardhandas, Krishnadas and Gokuldas. Murali died in 1907, Krishnadas, the plaintiff's father, in 1908 and Govardhan in 1909. Gokuldas, the 1 defendant, became the surviving partner, who, without winding up the affairs of the dissolved firm, continued the business employing its assets. This has given rise to the questions that have now been argued before me.