LAWS(PVC)-1939-2-97

MAGAN BEHARI LAL Vs. RAM PARTAP SINGH

Decided On February 15, 1939
MAGAN BEHARI LAL Appellant
V/S
RAM PARTAP SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by the plaintiff and also cross-objections by the defendant. Learned Counsel for defendant states that the cross-objections are not pressed and we dismiss them with costs. The plaintiff brought a suit for the following reliefs: (a) That the partnership known as Magan Behari Lal Ram Partap Singh may be declared as dissolved from a date to be fixed by the Court. (b) That on its being declared dissolved, an account he taken of the said partnership and the defendant be asked to render its accounts from 1922 up to the date of the decree and whatever is found due to the plaintiff be awarded to him.

(2.) The partnership had a wide scope according to the plaintiff and the defendant admitted the partnership but did not admit the extent of the partnership. The plaintiff set out that the partnership with the defendant began in 1916 and comprised the following eight undertakings:

(3.) The plaintiff admitted that the accounts of the undertakings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had already been made up and therefore nothing remained in regard to the accounts of those undertakings. The Court below found that there was practically no evidence of the undertaking No. 8 and that no such undertaking was proved. There was no appeal against this finding. The three under, takings Nos. 3, 6 and 7 which remained for the consideration of the Court were all in regard to the manufacture and supply of bricks and the case for the plaintiff was that these three undertakings were of the joint partnership business. The Court below has held in favour of the plaintiff that this was so. It is admitted that the firm was not registered in accordance with the provisions of the Partnership Act, Act 9 of 1932. Accordingly, Issue 8 was framed : "Is the suit barred by Section 69, Partnership. Act?" On this issue the Court below found that the suit was barred except so far as a decree could be granted for the dissolution of the partnership and the Court therefore granted a decree in the following terms: It is declared that the partnership styled as "Magan Behari Lai Ram Partap" shall standi dissolved from this date, 9 November 1936. Plaintiff's claim for the taking of accounts and for the recovery of amount that may be found due is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their costs.