Implied partnership in family business recognised, but claim for accounts failed as limitation had already expired.

Joint labour by members of a larger undivided family does not by itself make property joint family property in the Mitakshara sense; the evidence here did not establish a distinct branch family or incorporation of the acquisitions into family property, so that claim failed. The surrounding conduct, however, supported an implied partnership in the contract business, and the plaintiff was treated as a partner because his participation had been permitted without objection. A suit for account after the business relationship had ended had to be brought within limitation; as the partnership had broken down years earlier and the claim was delayed, the suit was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the property claimed by the plaintiff was joint family property or partnership property so as to entitle him to share in it. (ii) Whether the suit was barred by limitation on the footing that any partnership had already ended.

Issue (i): Whether the property claimed by the plaintiff was joint family property or partnership property so as to entitle him to share in it.

Analysis: Property can acquire the character of joint family property when it belongs to the undivided family as a corporate unit, or when separate acquisitions are clearly incorporated into such family property. Two members of a larger undivided family do not, by that fact alone, constitute a separate joint family owning property as such. On the evidence, the plaintiff and the first defendant were not shown to form a distinct branch family, nor was there a basis for treating the acquisitions as joint family property in the Mitakshara sense. However, the evidence showed regular and continuous joint labour in the contract business, the plaintiff's association with that business over several years, and the surrounding family arrangement, from which an implied agreement of partnership could be inferred. The first defendant, having allowed the plaintiff to act in that manner without objection, was also precluded from denying the plaintiff's interest in the business.

Conclusion: The claim as joint family property failed, but the plaintiff was held entitled to be treated as a partner in the contract business.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation on the footing that any partnership had already ended.

Analysis: Once the partnership came to an end, the right to sue for an account had to be enforced within the applicable limitation period. The evidence showed that the brothers' business relationship had broken down by about the end of 1893 or the beginning of 1894, after which each carried on separately. The plaintiff's own conduct showed no assertion of a claim for several years, and the later suit was brought long after the business relation had ceased. On that footing, the suit, treated as one for winding up a dissolved partnership, was time-barred.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's attempt to recover a share in the property could not succeed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Joint labour by some members of a larger undivided family does not, without more, create joint family property in their favour, and where the evidence shows an implied partnership that has already been dissolved, a subsequent suit for account is governed by limitation.

---