RAJ LAL Vs. RASHILLA RAM AND ANR.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rashilla Ram And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
Kapur, J. -
(1.) THIS is an appeal against a judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub -ordinate Judge, Kangra, dismissing two appeals of the pltf and the Deft in a partnership suit.
(2.) THE Pltf Rasila Ram brought a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against Data Raj Lal Deft 1 and Parshotam Chand Deft 2 alleging that he had by virtue of a document Ex. P. 1 been made a partner with Data Raj Lal and by Ex. P. 2 a partner with Parshotam Chand. The Defts denied the existence of the partnership and the Ct of first instance held that partnership between the Pltf and Data Raj Lal Deft 1 in the 'katha' business had been proved and that Data Raj Lal had given to the Pltf a share out of his own share of ten annas which he had in the partnership with others, and passed a preliminary decree against Defendant 1 but dismissed the suit against Deft 2, on he ground that no partnership had been proved. An appeal was taken against this decree by Deft 1 as regards the claim of the pltf against him and another by the Pltf as regards his claim against Deft 2. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge held that the Pltf was a sub -partner with Data Raj Lal and could therefore sue for accounts against Data Raj Lal and dismissed the letter's appeal. He also dismissed the appeal of the Pltf against Parshotam Chand Deft 2. An appeal has been brought against this decree by Deft 1 and it was submitted before me that on the findings the Pltf was not entitled to a decree against Data Raj Lal. The finding of the first appellate Ct is that Pltf is a Sub -partner with Deft 1. As such his rights must be governed by Section 29, Partnership Act Which is as follows:
29(1) A transfer by a partner of his interest in the firm, either absolute or by mtge or by the creation by him of a charge on such interest, does not entitle the transferee, during the continuance of the firm, to interfere in the conduct of the business, or to require accounts or to inspect the books of the firm, but entitles the transferee only to receive the share of profits of the transferring partner, and the transferee shall accept the account of profits agreed to by the partners.
(2) If the firm is dissolved or if the transferring partner ceases to be a partner, the transferee is entitled as against the remaining partners to receive the share of the assets of the firm to which the transferring partner is entitled, and, for the purpose of ascertaining that share, to an account as from the date of the dissolution.
(3.) IT has been held that If several persons are partners and one of them agrees to share the profits derived by him with a stranger, this agreement does not make the stranger a partner in the original firm, and such a Sub -partner has no right to an account from the principal firm. If a partner assigns his share the assignees so long as the partnership continues has (SIC) right to an account from the other partners of the profits to which their co -partner may be entitled, but on a dissolution of the partnership he is entitled to an account as from the date of the dissolution; see Lindley on Partnership pp. 66 and 588. The law in India is the same because Section 31 of the English Act is identically the same as Section 29 of the Indian Act. In India it has been held that a Sub -partner alter the dissolution is entitled to have an account taken to ascertain the share of the partner under whom he claims : see 'Chidambaram Chetty v. Karuthan Chetty', 39 MLJ 511 at p. 513 :, AIR 1920 Mad 65 and Desai on Partnership, p. 169.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.