1930 (12) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed no capital and that they were partners in equal shaves. Hoti Lal died in 1920 but the firm continued to work as before in partnership of the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff finding that a considerable sum was due to him which the defendant would not pay and the defendant refusing to render accounts, seeks dissolution of partnership and a decree for the sum that may be due upon accounting. 3. The defendant in his written statement controverted the facts as to the constitution of the partnership and stated that. Hoti Lal invested no funds in it and was given a four annas share which was subsequently increased to a 2/5ths share in consideration of his services, that after the death of Hoti Lal in 1920 an account was settled of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the partnership as no partnership existed after the death of Hoti Lal. The plaintiff being a minor could not enter into a contract with Beni Ram to form partnership. There being no partnership in existence the provisions of Section 247, Contract Act cannot apply to a case like the present. 7. We have been taken through the whole of the evidence in the case by the learned advocates for the parties. It is unnecessary to discuss that evidence as we have come to the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge are correct. We hold that the evidence in the case does not prove that there was any complete accounting between the parties to the suit after the death of Hoti Lal, nor was there a fresh agreement betwee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ined all the assets in the business, the defendant must account to the plaintiff for the profits arising from Hoti Lal's share of the capital. He has referred to the provisions of Section 88, Trusts Act (2 of 1882) and Illus. (f). He has further referred to the case of Huji Hedayatulla v. Mahomed Kamil A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 93, where their Lordships of the Privy Council have accepted the principle contended for by him. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the above case is to be found in Mahomed Kamil v. Hadayatulla A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 122. Mukerji, J., at p. 909 (of 48 Cal) says as follows: The plaintiffs have argued that as the business has been carried on since the death of Fazil, the defendant who has carried cm the business ....