9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (12) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e firm continued to work as before in partnership of the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff finding that a considerable sum was due to him which the defendant would not pay and the defendant refusing to render accounts, seeks dissolution of partnership and a decree for the sum that may be due upon accounting. 3. The defendant in his written statement controverted the facts as to the constitution of the partnership and stated that. Hoti Lal invested no funds in it and was given a four annas share which was subsequently increased to a 2/5ths share in consideration of his services, that after the death of Hoti Lal in 1920 an account was settled of the partnership and no partnership was entered into between the plaintiff and the defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being a minor could not enter into a contract with Beni Ram to form partnership. There being no partnership in existence the provisions of Section 247, Contract Act cannot apply to a case like the present. 7. We have been taken through the whole of the evidence in the case by the learned advocates for the parties. It is unnecessary to discuss that evidence as we have come to the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge are correct. We hold that the evidence in the case does not prove that there was any complete accounting between the parties to the suit after the death of Hoti Lal, nor was there a fresh agreement between the parties to continue the partnership. We further hold that on the evidence the pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e profits arising from Hoti Lal's share of the capital. He has referred to the provisions of Section 88, Trusts Act (2 of 1882) and Illus. (f). He has further referred to the case of Huji Hedayatulla v. Mahomed Kamil A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 93, where their Lordships of the Privy Council have accepted the principle contended for by him. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the above case is to be found in Mahomed Kamil v. Hadayatulla A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 122. Mukerji, J., at p. 909 (of 48 Cal) says as follows: The plaintiffs have argued that as the business has been carried on since the death of Fazil, the defendant who has carried cm the business is bound to account for the profits made and to share them with the plaintiffs. In support of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay v. Collins [1820] 15 Ves. 218 and Heathcote v. Hulme [1819] Jac. Wa. 122. It may be observed that the rule thus laid down has been incorporated in Section 42, Partnerships Act, 1890. The provisions of that Act are not applicable in this country; but the rule itself is manifestly consistent with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. 10. We are of opinion that in view of the provisions of the Trusts Act and in view of the ruling of their Lordships in the case of Haji Hedayatulla v. Mahomed Kamil, the plaintiff is entitled to an account of the profits of the business since the death of Hoti Lal up to the date when the final decree is made. Section 241, Contract Act has in our opinion no application to the facts of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
