- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below by which the suit of the plaintiff - respondent No. 1 has been decreed. The facts of the case are as under :-
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Ram Lubhaya, filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of account against the appellant and certain other persons of the firm Messrs Malhotra brothers constituted in terms of the partnership deed dated 1st May, 1970. The aforesaid partnership-deed provided for the respective shares of the various partners and laid down other conditions for the proper running of the partnership business. On the presentation of the plaint, notice was given to the opposite party and while some of the defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiff - respondent, defendant No. 1 i.e. Jagdish Rai controverted the same. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court : 1. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing this suit by his act and conduct, as alleged in the written statement? OPD 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, OPD 1 and 2. 3. Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD 4. What is the effect of not mentioning the approximate amount in the plaint which may be found due to the plaintiff from the defendants? OPP 5. Whether it was agreed between the parties that the parties would not accept any contracts yielding less than 25% of profits? OPP 6. Who is accounting party? OPP 7. What amount did the plaintiff and defendant invest? OPP 8. Relief. Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were decided against the defendants whereas issue No. 4 was decided in favour of plaintiff-respondent and it was held that the plaintiff had correctly given the estimated amount in their pleadings and on the material issue No. 6 the trial court rendered its decision that it was Jagdish Rai appellant who was primarily the accounting party and he, along with Piare Lal and Karam Chand were held liable to give full final accounts of the firm on behalf of the firm. A preliminary decree was accordingly drawn up by the trial court and the same was challenged in appeal before the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court on issue No. 6 affirmed the findings of the trial court and held that it was primarily Jagdish Rai the present appellant, who was liable to render the accounts. Primary reliance was placed on clause (9) of the partnership deed as also the statement made by Jagdish Rai as DW12 to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. In his statement, he had admitted that all the bank accounts of M/s Malhotra brothers were in his name, except the two contracts which were in the name of Piare Lal and it was he, who issued the cheques for disbursement of salary etc. On a minute examination of the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, the lower Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence the second appeal at the instance of Jagdish Rai. 2. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that from the evidence, more particularly the partnership-deed, it was clear that all the partners were maintaining the accounts and as such the finding of the courts below that it was the appellant who was only responsible for maintaining the accounts and, therefore, liable to render them to other partners was misconceived. This argument to my mind is without force. The courts below have found on a deep appreciation of the evidence and on the question of fact that it was Jagdish Rai appellant and to some extent Piare Lal one of the other partners who were liable to render the accounts in terms of the partnership deed. No infirmity has been pointed out which could convince me that the findings recorded were not justified. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.;