TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1942 (12) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vil Judge of Jhansi. There is little or no dispute as to facts but the parties do not agree as to what is their legal status on those facts. The plaintiff Edulji Meharbanji Boyce brought this suit against the defendants, Shiam Sunder Lal and his minor brother, Brij Mohan Lal, under the guardianship of Shiam Sunder Lal. He alleged that the parties were partners and he asked for accounts and for suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts from 1915 till 9th April 1935, the date when there was partition between the parties, was passed. 2. The learned District Judge also found that the defendants were the agents of the plaintiff but limited the accounts to the period from June 1931 to 9th April 1936 because it was on the earlier date that Musaddi Lal, the father of the defendants, died. The learned District Judge found that ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n up leaving the ice factory only, the learned Judge would have held that there was a partnership. He, however, held that merely collecting rents from houses and shops and dividing them between the parties would not establish a partnership. He evidently thought that the word 'business' as used in Section 239, Contract Act, meant some undertaking of an industrial or commercial nature. That ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the Court by the defendants showed that there was a partnership which included this house property. What happened was that when the partner Meharbanji died his sons Feroz Shah and Edulji were taken into partner, ship by Ganga Sahai on the same terms as their father and so when Ganga Sahai died either Musaddi Lal alone or Musaddi Lal and his two sons, the defendants replaced Ganga Sahai in the ....