Limitation for rendition of accounts starts on dissolution by death of a partner; concurrent findings stayed undisturbed absent error.

A partnership at will dissolved by operation of law on the death of a partner, and in the absence of any contract to the contrary, limitation for a suit for rendition of accounts ran from that dissolution. A suit filed long after dissolution was therefore time-barred, and the court was required to notice the bar even without a plea because admitted facts disclosed a pure question of law. In the connected matter, the decree for dissolution and rendition of accounts was supported by concurrent findings of fact, and no exceptional ground justified appellate interference. The time-barred claim failed, while the concurrent decree remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts was barred by limitation on account of the death of a partner and automatic dissolution of the partnership; (ii) whether the concurrent findings sustaining dissolution and rendition of accounts in the second matter called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts was barred by limitation on account of the death of a partner and automatic dissolution of the partnership.

Analysis: The partnership was a partnership at will and one partner had admittedly died in 1984. On that event, the firm stood dissolved by operation of law under the governing partnership provision, unless there was a contract to the contrary, which was absent. The period for a suit for rendition of accounts runs from dissolution, and a suit filed in 1996 was therefore beyond the prescribed period. The bar of limitation operates even if not pleaded, and where the facts showing bar are admitted, limitation is a pure question of law that the court must notice.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on that ground was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent findings sustaining dissolution and rendition of accounts in the second matter called for interference.

Analysis: The material on record did not disclose any infirmity in the decree directing dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts. The courts below had recorded concurrent findings of fact in favour of the plaintiff, and no exceptional ground was made out for interference in appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the concurrent findings failed and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with one matter resulting in restoration of the decree against the plaintiff's claim and the other matter left undisturbed, reflecting only partial success for the appellants overall.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a partnership stands dissolved by death of a partner, the limitation for rendition of accounts runs from that dissolution, and a court must dismiss a time-barred suit even if limitation was not pleaded; concurrent findings of fact are not disturbed absent exceptional error.

---