1937 (8) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the dissolution of the partnership. The partnership business was, however, carried on by the plaintiff (who took the place of his deceased father), and the first defendant. This partnership carried on business until 1933 when the first defendant gave notice to the plaintiff dissolving the partnership. When the original partnership was formed, that is, the partnership between the plaintiff's father and the first defendant, it was agreed that they should share equally in the profits. They had each contributed a sum of ₹ 250 towards the capital. The plaintiff's father, however, was not satisfied with a division of profits on this basis, and on the 16th November, 1922, it was agreed between the plaintiff's father and the first....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cceed on the other point. 4. In the trial Court the plaintiff contended that he was Sahib entitled to have the accounts taken on the basis that he had a share of 9 1/2 annas on the ground that this had been expressly agreed. The first defendant similarly set up an express agreement to share equally. The learned Judge disbelieved the evidence of both the plaintiff and the first defendant and held that there was no express agreement at all. The parties had merely agreed to carry on the partnership business, the plaintiff taking the place of his deceased father and nothing being said about the shares. On this finding he held that the plaintiff was entitled to the share of his deceased father, and we consider that this decision is correct. 5.....