9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Continuation of partnership after the death of the plaintiff's father. 2. Amendment of the plaint and the issue of limitation. 3. Validity of acknowledgments under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. 4. Liability of joint family members in a partnership. 5. Interest on the amount due from the partnership. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Continuation of Partnership After the Death of the Plaintiff's Father: The plaintiff alleged that the partnership continued even after the death of his father on 30th April 1927. The trial court held that there was no subsisting partnership after the death of the plaintiff's father and dismissed the suit. The High Court upheld this view, agreeing that the partnership did not continue post the father's death. 2. Amendment of the Plaint and the Issue of Limitation: The plaintiff applied to amend the plaint to include an alternative cause of action, stating that if the partnership was not subsisting, the accounts should be taken as if the partnership dissolved on the father's death. The trial court rejected this amendment, but the High Court allowed it, conditional upon the limitation issue being considered. Both parties assumed the amendment was made, and the trial court ruled that the amendment related back to the filing of the suit, making it within time. The High Court agreed, stating that the cause of action was within time even on the date of the amendment application, 23rd August 1935. 3. Validity of Acknowledgments Under Section 19 of the Limitation Act: The main issue was whether the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff relied on various acknowledgments to save limitation. The key acknowledgment dated 8th December 1931 was within three years of the plaintiff attaining majority (13th December 1928), thus starting a fresh period of limitation. The High Court held that the acknowledgment was valid under Section 19, Limitation Act, and started a fresh period of limitation, making the suit filed on 27th September 1933 within time. The court clarified that the period of limitation prescribed for a minor includes the extended period under Section 6, Limitation Act. 4. Liability of Joint Family Members in a Partnership: The learned Judge found that the partner of the plaintiff's father was not defendant 1 alone but the joint family of which he was the karta. Evidence showed that the joint family firm, Anandji Shekhi Ladha, was involved in the partnership. Thus, the decree was rightly passed against defendants 2 and 3 to the extent of the joint family assets. 5. Interest on the Amount Due from the Partnership: The trial court allowed interest at 6% on the amounts due from the date of dissolution till the filing of the suit. The High Court upheld this, stating that Section 37 of the Partnership Act, 1932, embodies a principle of partnership law that a partner using partnership assets must pay interest or profits. The court also upheld the 6% interest rate, rejecting the argument to reduce it to 4% post the filing of the suit, as the partner continued to use the assets. Conclusion: The High Court confirmed the trial court's decree, addressing all issues comprehensively and dismissing the appeal with costs.
|
