1930 (12) TMI 22 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Partnership dissolution and rendition of accounts.

Detailed Analysis:
The plaintiff appealed in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff alleged that his father and the defendant entered into a partnership for a confectionery business, with the defendant being taken as a partner by the plaintiff's father in consideration of services, without any capital investment. The plaintiff sought dissolution of the partnership and a decree for the amount due upon accounting. The defendant disputed the partnership constitution, claiming the plaintiff's father had a share in the business based on services rendered. The Subordinate Judge initially decreed in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the partnership dissolved on the father's death and directing an account for the period before his death, with interest at six percent.

The plaintiff challenged the lower court's findings, and the defendant filed cross-objections. The appellant contended that the plaintiff, being a minor at his father's death, was admitted to the partnership benefits under Section 247 of the Contract Act. However, the court held that as no partnership existed after the father's death, the plaintiff, being a minor, could not be admitted as a partner. The court found that there was no complete accounting or fresh agreement to continue the partnership after the father's death, supporting the plaintiff's right to call for accounts for the period before the death.

Regarding the accounting, the plaintiff argued for a share in post-death profits, citing the Trusts Act and legal precedents. The court, following the ruling in Haji Hedayatulla v. Mahomed Kamil, held that the plaintiff was entitled to an account of post-death profits until the final decree. Section 241 of the Contract Act was deemed inapplicable. The court allowed the appeal in part, directing the commissioner to take accounts as if the partnership had never been dissolved. The plaintiff was entitled to Hoti Lal's share of profits, with a fair allowance for the defendant's management and any fresh capital brought in, while costs were to abide the result of the appeal and cross-objection.