RATANLAL HAZARILAL Vs. SETH LAXMINARAYAN SURAJKARANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in this appeal is whether the purchase of the disputed property viz. , the eight annas share in the partnership concern known as madhav Cotton Press, is vitiated as regards the plaintiffs 1/5th share therein by section 66 C. P. G.

(2.) THE plaintiff Ratanlal filed the present suit against defendants Seth laxminarayan, Seth Kanhaiyalal and the Firm Nazarali Alabux for dissolution of partnership and for accounts on the allegations that the eight annas share in the aforesaid concern owned by Hal Saheb Seth Mulchand proprietor of the Firm pannalal Ganeshdas had been put up for auction in execution of a decree against him; that while the auction sale was in progress five persons including (1) the plaintiff Ratanlal, (2) defendant No. 1 Laxminarayan, (3) Munnixlalji the father of defendant No. 2, (4) Basantilal Palwia, the Munim of the Firm Tilokchand kalyanmal and (5) Lalji Bhai, agreed that each should contribute his l/5th share of money required for the purchase of the aforesaid eight annas share in the auction-sale and thereafter each should have an equal share in the profits and losses of the property thus purchased; that in pursuance of this, agreement the property was purchased but the auction-sale was knocked in the name of Seth laxminarayan and Seth Munnalal only; that the plaintiff contributed his 1/5th share of the price namely 3,240/-, 1/4th amount of Rs. 810/- on the date of the auction-sale i. e. 24-2-1939 and the balance of 3/4th on 4-3-1939. The other partners also contributed their share of the auction price and the property stood purchased for Rs. 16,200/-, that later Basantilal and Lalji Bhai sold their respective shares to defendant No. 1 Laxminarayan and Seth Munnalalji and withdrew from the partnership thereby increasing the shares of each of them to 2/5th: that Munnalalji died about 2 years before the suit and his son Kanhaiyalal who became the Karta of his joint family was impleaded as such to represent his 2/5th share in this suit; that the plaintiff called upon the defendants 1 and 2 to render accounts of the Firm, they avoided doing so which compelled the plaintiff to give them registered notices for the purposes; that defendant No. 3 who represented the other eight annas share was impleaded as pro forma defendant as the suit related to the dissolution of the Firm regarding eight annas share of the concern and for its accounts. The plaintiff on these allegations claimed dissolution and for accounts.

(3.) THE defendant No. 3 besides either not admitting or denying the plaintiff's allegations asserted that he had purchased four annas share of defendant No. 1 under a registered deed of sale dated 26-2-1951. It was consequently asserted that for accounts prior to 26-2-1951 to the extent of defendant No. 1's four annas share defendant No. 3 was not responsible.