1930 (1) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mt. Basanti Bibi is a married lady living in Bihar in the District of Monghyr. Her plaint asks for the following reliefs: That it may be declared that the plaintiff is the sole owner of 11/4 annas share which belonged to Lal Ram Narain (her father) out of the five annas share of the firm Radha Kishan-Sita Ram and that defendant 9 (one Seth Chiranni Lal) has right to a five pie share appertaining to the share of Ram Narain which was sold to him by defendants 6 to 8, who had purchased it from defendants 4 and 5. 3. The plaint further asks for the relief of profits from Sambat in 1967 (1910-11) up to the date of suit. The plaint sets forth that Ram Narain died at some date which is not stated and subsequently his widow Mt. Shib Bai died on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... about 30 in number. The five annas share in the factory was owned by the members of the family to whom the father of the plaintiff belonged. The trial Court has assumed that five annas share was a partnership within the partnership which consisted of the factory partners. That is a very peculiar view of law, and we do not consider that such a view is consistent with the definition of partnership in Section 239, Contract Act. The section states: Partnership is the relation which subsists between persons who have agreed to combine their property, labour, or skill in some business and to share the profits thereof between them. 5. Persons who have entered into a partnership with one another are called collectively a firm. If there were to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the death of Ram Narain caused a dissolution of the partnership. Now the question is what is the correct article to apply to the present suit under the Limitation Act. We are of opinion that the correct article is Article 141, which applies to a suit for possession of an immovable property by a Hindu en-titled to the possession of the immovable property on the death of a Hindu female. The present plaintiff became entitled to possession on the death of her mother Mt. Shib Bai which we find to have taken place on 21st June 1916. The factory consists of immovable property, and accordingly Article 141 is the correct article to apply. Article 120; which is only applicable, when there is no other article which applies, is not the proper article .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X