LAWS(MAD)-1965-3-28

S KADIR IBRAHIM ROWTHER Vs. NOOR MOHAMMAD ROWTHER

Decided On March 19, 1965
S.KADIR IBRAHIM ROWTHER Appellant
V/S
NOOR MOHAMMAD ROWTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in a suit, where a preliminary decree for the taking of accounts of a transport concern has been passed, have preferred this appeal against the final decree in the matter. I have just now delivered judgment in S. A. 798 of 1961 confirming the preliminary decree passed by the courts below.

(2.) THE plaintiff's suit was laid on the basis that he was partner with the first defendant in the transport concern and reliefs for dissolution and accounts were claimed. The defence, inter alia, was that the plaintiff was merely an employee in the business, placed in the management of the business with an obligation to run the concern, and remunerated by a half share in the profits, with no interest in the assets of the business. The original agreement relating to the service was between the plaintiff and the first defendant, evidenced by Ex. B. 1, and later the agreement was renewed in favour of the second defendant, Ex. B. 2. Several pleas were raised by the plaintiff in relation to these agreements, and particularly the plea that the second defendant was merely a name-lender for the first defendant. It is unnecessary to refer to these matters in greater detail as they have been the subject of detailed consideration in the appeal against the preliminary decree.

(3.) THOUGH the dispute in the taking of accounts related to several items in the courts below, in the second appeal the defendants have confirmed their arguments to two items. The first and more important one is the claim of the defendants that in the calculation of the profits, to a half share in which the plaintiff has been decreed as entitled, deduction should be made for depreciation in the value of the vehicles, buses and lorries. The second one relates to the expenses of the litigation in O. S. 41 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's court, pudukottai, the defendants contending that these expenses, inclusive of the decree amount, should be debited as an out-going of the business before the profits are divided.