TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1938 (4) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rward business of a somewhat speculative nature. The composite firm so constituted traded in the name of Punnaji Devichand, which was the name of defendant No. 1, the largest of the constituent firms. The business went on for three or four months only and resulted, as we understand, in heavy losses and also in litigation which lasted for many years and involved two appeals to the Privy Council. 2. In this appeal we are not much concerned with the names of the several constituent firms or with their shares. As to the shares in fact there is no longer any dispute. But I should mention that plaintiffs claim to represent the firm of Hakmaji Meghaji, which was one of the constituent firms in the partnership, and defendant No. 1 is the firm of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he argument was that the bar of limitation arises because Meghaji Trikamji of the firm of Hakmaji Meghaji and Bhikaji the owner of the firm of Aslaji Sonmal both died more than three years before the suit. 5. Under Section 253 of the Indian Contract Act, which contains the law applicable to this case, a partnership is dissolved by the death of any partner in the absence of any contract to the contrary. It is an admitted fact that Meghaji Trikamji died in 1927 and that Bhikaji also died more than three years before the suit. Under Article 106 of the Indian Limitation Act a suit for an account and a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership must be brought within three years of the date of dissolution. As I have mentioned, the trial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntiff No. 1, if anything, rather suggests that there was a dissolution, and certainly it cannot be said to afford any basis for a conclusion that there was a contract or agreement between the parties that the death of a partner was not to dissolve the partnership. We think it must be held on the evidence that both these firms, that of Hakmaji Meghaji and that of Aslaji Sonmal, became dissolved on the death of Meghaji and Bhikaji respectively and that was more than three years before the suit. In one sense no doubt this is not very material because learned Counsel for the respondents concedes that plaintiff No. 1 at any rate would be entitled to bring a suit for accounts of the main partnership as being himself a member of that partnership. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e members of the partnership. It is neither a legal entity, nor is it a person. Then, after referring to authorities and noting that the law is different in Scotland, he says : " A firm name, in truth, is merely a description of the individuals who compose the firm. It is that, and it is nothing more." These observations were approved by a division bench of the same High Court in Brojo Lal Saha Banikya v. Budh Nath Pyarilal & Co. (1927) I.L.R. 55 Cal. 551 and the Allahabad High Court has followed these cases, although with a certain amount of hesitation, in In the matter of Jai Dayal Madan Gopal (1932) I.L.R. 54 All. 846. We understand that the same view of the law has been taken in Madras also, and I may mention Ghishulal Gamshila....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions and that defendant No. 1 refused to give them. 9. We were also referred to a letter, exhibit 74, which was sent by one Sonmal on behalf of the firm of Punnaji Devichand to plaintiff No. 1 in October, 1927. It gives him information of the date which had been fixed for the hearing of a suit brought by one Kapurji Magniram and requested his presence at the hearing. There is practically no evidence as to the circumstances in which this letter was sent, but even if we assume that the suit of Kapurji Magniram was against the main firm of Punnaji Devichand and not the firm of defendant No. 1, which also traded under that name, the fact that plaintiff No. 1 was asked to attend during the litigation has no value as evidence that the busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any business at the material time. It did business for three or four months only. After that there was nothing to do except to wind up the business and settle accounts. It would in our opinion be stressing the statement of defendant No. 1 unfairly to treat it as an admission that the partnership continued after the death of two of the partners. The circumstances of the case rather suggest that the business which was contemplated was to last a short period only and on the ground of general probabilities therefore there is no reason to suppose that the parties would be likely to agree that the partnership was not to be dissolved according to the ordinary law by the death of a partner. We must hold that the plaintiffs have not succeeded in pro....