9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (9) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of them used to keep the accounts and, that therefore, the defendant is liable to render accounts to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for rendition of accounts but did not specify the period for which the accounts were to be rendered. They also prayed for dissolution of the partnership. 2. The defendant-respondent admitted the partnership as alleged by the plaintiffs, but he alleged that Abdul Shakoor used to keep the accounts and cash, that he did not pay anything to Wali Mohammad and misappropriated the assets of the partnership, that no accounting was ever done since the inception of the partnership, that Abdul Shakoor used to charge commission at the rate of ₹ 2-8-0 per score of goats from his customers but in the account books entered it at the rate of 12 annas per score of goats. The defendant, therefore, claimed that accounts be taken from the plaintiffs from the commencement of the partnership and a decree may be passed in his favour for the amount which may be found due to him. 3. In the trial Court the parties agreed that a preliminary decree he passed and a Commissioner be appointed to find out the money due to from (1) the commencement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e plaint the plaintiffs made the statement that Abdul Shakoor aforesaid died about three years ago and thereafter the partnership business aforesaid was carried on by Wali Mohammad alias Wali, according to the previous partnership, in partnership with the plaintiffs (heirs of Abdul Shakoor and Mt. Maryam Bibi) till his life time and the plaintiffs and Wali Mohammad, alias Wali remained entitled to profits and liable for loss in equal shares , and in para. 4, they stated, that after the death of Wali Mohamraad alias Walli which occurred about one year ago the defendant in partnership with the plaintiffs began to carry on the agency business aforesaid, the plaintiffs and the defendant have continued to be entitled to profits and liable for the loss in the business aforesaid half and half. The defendant admitted the contents of paras. 3 and 4 and added, after the death of Abdul Shakoor, which occurred more than three years ago, plaintiffs 2 to 5 in their own right and plaintiff 1 for self and as guardian of minor plaintiffs 6 to 9, according to previous rules became partners in the firm of Abdul Shakoor Wali Mohammad with the defendant's father. After the death of Wali M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship continues as between the surviving partners and the heirs, if they come in, may come in place of the deceased partner and become partners upon the old terms. In such a case it will not be a new partnership but will be treated as the old partnership which continues without a break. 10. Of the authorities mentioned by the lower Court, the first two are not opposed to this view. 11. In Gokul Krishna Das v. Sashimukhi Dasi, 16 Cal. W.N. 299, the original partnership consisted of more than two persons. There was no direct evidence to show what the contract between the parties at the inception of the partnership was. But the subordinate Judge held--and his view was not contested before the District Judge--that the conduct of the parties since 1887 showed that there must have been a contract between the original parties that the partnership would not be dissolved by the death of any partner. 12. In Basanti Bibi v. Babu Lal, 1930 ALL. L.J. 1517, the original partnership was between a large number of persons, namely, 30. The partnership was in respect of a factory and the partners treated their shares as if they were shares in the unregistered Company. The business had bean go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st be implied that rights and liabilities of the new partners will be taken to be as if Abdul Shakoor's death had created no dissolution in the partnership or in other words that they were liable on the accounts being taken from the commencement of the old partnership or from the date of the last accounting, as the case may be. This view is supported by authority. 15. In Aabdul Jaffar v. K. Venugopal Chettiar, A.I.R. (11) 1924 Mad. 708, it was held that when a partner dies, the partnership comes to an end under the Contract Act. But nevertheless, if the remaining partners continue the business for the purpose of ascertaining what shares those remaining partners brought into the new partnership an account may have to be taken of the old partnership, and there will be no question of limitation at all in such a case as that, for the account of the old partnership is taken not for the purpose of enforcing the claim to the money due as profits in that partnership, but for the purpose of ascertaining what the capital supplied by the continuing partners was to the new partnership. See also Ahinsa Bibi v. Abdul Kader, 25 Mad. 26. 16. The heirs of Abdul Shakoor came into t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
