9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit claim. 3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. 4. To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue No. 1: Whether the suit is maintainable. The court found that the suit is maintainable. The written statement contended that two different claims were made by the two plaintiffs, implying a single suit was not maintainable. However, the court disagreed, noting that the claim arose from a single partnership deed between the plaintiffs and defendants, not independently. Additionally, since the second defendant was not granted any relief, the court held that the suit was not bad for misjoinder of causes of action. Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit claim. The court examined the partnership deed dated April 25, 1970 (Exhibit P-2) and the retirement deed dated June 29, 1977 (Exhibit P-1). The plaintiffs claimed goodwill ascertained by auditors post-dissolution, but the defendants contested this claim, arguing no goodwill existed and payments made were already in excess. The court referenced various legal definitions and methods of evaluating goodwill, including the "super-profits method" and the "multiplier method of average profits." The court concluded that the method adopted by the defendants' auditor (D.W. 2) was more reasonable given the business's nature and circumstances. Therefore, the court accepted the evaluation of Rs. 13,275 for the firm's goodwill, with each partner's share being Rs. 6,638. Consequently, the first plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 6,638 as his share of goodwill, while the second plaintiff's claim was dismissed. Issue No. 3: Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. The court held that the suit was not bad for misjoinder of causes of action. The claims arose from a single partnership deed, and since no relief was granted to the second plaintiff, the issue of misjoinder did not arise. Issue No. 4: To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled. The court decreed that the first plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 6,638 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the plaint until realization. The first plaintiff was also entitled to proportionate costs from the defendants. The claim of the second plaintiff was dismissed without costs. Conclusion: The court concluded that the suit was maintainable, the first plaintiff was entitled to a goodwill share of Rs. 6,638 with interest, and the suit was not bad for misjoinder of causes of action. The second plaintiff's claim was dismissed without costs.
|
