Partnership dissolution on death and limitation for accounts do not bar a separate claim to realised partnership assets.

A contractual partnership is dissolved on the death of one partner, unless a fresh arrangement to continue the business can be inferred from later conduct. On that basis, a general suit for accounts and share of profits is governed by the applicable limitation period and may be time-barred. However, a separate claim limited to the plaintiff's share in partnership assets realised by the other partners after compromise is not necessarily barred with the general account claim, because it concerns a narrower inquiry and does not require reopening the entire partnership accounts. The matter was remanded to examine implied continuation of the partnership and, failing that, entitlement to a share in the realised assets.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the partnership stood dissolved on the death of Kandasami and whether a suit for general account and share of profits was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether, even if a general account claim was time-barred, the plaintiff could still maintain a claim to his share in partnership assets realised by the defendants after the compromise.

Issue (i): Whether the partnership stood dissolved on the death of Kandasami and whether a suit for general account and share of profits was barred by limitation.

Analysis: A partnership created by contract is dissolved by the death of one of the contracting partners. On the facts, the relation between the parties could not survive the death of Kandasami merely because the business was connected with a joint family concern. A suit for a general account and share of profits was therefore governed by the period of limitation applicable to such a claim, unless a fresh agreement to continue the business could be inferred from subsequent conduct.

Conclusion: The death of Kandasami dissolved the contractual partnership, and the general account claim was prima facie time-barred unless a continuing arrangement could be established.

Issue (ii): Whether, even if a general account claim was time-barred, the plaintiff could still maintain a claim to his share in partnership assets realised by the defendants after the compromise.

Analysis: A claim confined to the plaintiff's share in assets realised by the defendants after the compromise was treated as distinct from a suit for general account. The lapse of time barring a general account did not, by itself, extinguish the plaintiff's right to claim a share of such realised assets, because that relief depended on a narrower inquiry and did not require reopening the whole partnership accounts.

Conclusion: The plaintiff could maintain a claim to his share in assets realised after the compromise, notwithstanding that a general account suit was barred.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the District Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded for further inquiry, including whether there was an implied continuation of the partnership and, failing that, the plaintiff's entitlement to a share in the realised assets.

Ratio Decidendi: A time-bar against a suit for general partnership accounts does not preclude a separate claim for the plaintiff's share in specific partnership assets realised by the defendants, and such a claim may proceed without reopening the entire accounts.

---