1969 (7) TMI 115 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.
2. Withholding of material account books.
3. Admissibility and weight of the statement of a deceased witness.
4. Distribution of deposited amount among partners.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dissolution of Partnership and Rendition of Accounts:
The plaintiff filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts against the defendants. A preliminary decree for dissolution and accounts was awarded, affirmed on appeal. The Local Commissioner appointed to go into accounts reported dues from the defendants to the plaintiff. However, the trial court set aside this report and dismissed the suit, finding it impossible to go into accounts due to both parties withholding important account books. The District Judge on appeal agreed with the trial court, concluding that the plaintiff had failed to produce material account books in his possession, thus not entitled to claim rendition of accounts.

2. Withholding of Material Account Books:
The trial court presumed against the plaintiff under clause (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act for non-production of account books in his possession. The District Judge upheld this finding, noting that the plaintiff's failure to produce material account books justified the presumption that the withheld evidence would be unfavorable to him. The court referenced the case of Debendra Narayan Singh v. Narendra Narayan Singh, which held that non-production of account books by a party in a suit for accounts justifies the presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

3. Admissibility and Weight of the Statement of a Deceased Witness:
The plaintiff challenged the admissibility of Baj Ram's statement, arguing it was inadmissible as he died before cross-examination. The court reviewed several precedents, concluding that the statement of a witness in examination-in-chief, admissible when recorded, does not become inadmissible due to the witness's subsequent death before cross-examination. The absence of cross-examination affects the weight of the statement, not its admissibility. The court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the finding that the account books for the relevant years were in the plaintiff's possession and willfully withheld.

4. Distribution of Deposited Amount Among Partners:
The District Judge addressed the Rs. 16,000 deposited by Munshi Ram in court, determining the parties were entitled to the amount according to their partnership shares. The plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 6,000, the legal representatives of Chandu Ram to Rs. 8,000, and Munshi Ram to Rs. 2,000. This distribution was based on the partnership agreement and the respective shares of the partners.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim rendition of accounts due to withholding material account books. The distribution of the deposited amount among the partners was upheld. The parties were left to bear their own costs.