C.B.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal was originally filed by the defendant Damodardas who died during the pendency of this appeal and so it is now being continued by his legal representatives. It is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 1961, of the District Judge. Jaipur District, Jaipur, in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The learned District Judge by his decree has declared that Damodar and his two sons Dwarka Das and Gordhandas are entitled to six annas share in 3 lakh carat white synthetic stones contained in GL/11, or if already sold, to six annas share in the net profit thereof from the defendant Damodardas. He has also appointed a Commissioner to go into accounts and submit his report.
(2.) THE suit was instituted by firm Ram Narain Damodar, Johari Bazar, Jaipur, through Damodar and Dwarkadas and Gordhan Das sons of Damodar Malpani, proprietors of the firm Ram Narain Damodar, on 13th April, 1944, against Damodardas Khandelwal. It was alleged that both parties had their business in the city of Jaipur and were dealing in precious stones. In July, 1941, it was agreed between Gordhan Das acting on behalf of the firm and the defendant that rough synthetic stones may be ordered from Georges Lambercier in partnership with whom the defendant was already in correspondence, and thereafter may be sold and the plaintiffs will have six annas share in its profit and loss, while the defendant will have 10 annas share. In pursuance of this agreement of partnership, an order with the joint consultation of the parties for 10 lakh carats of white synthetic stones and one lac carats of yellow colour was placed with Georges Lambercier. The latter despatched three cases numbering GL/11, 12 and 13 containing nine lac carat white synthetic stones in November 1941 to the defendant which was to arrive in Bombay via Newyork and the delivery was to be given on payment to the Imperial Bank of India. In January, 1943, plaintiffs were informed by the defendant that the consignment was reaching Bombay by steamer S.S. Lock Dee and that they should accompany him to Bombay for taking delivery. In the last week of February, 1943, defendant, however, informed that the delivery of the consignment had been stopped by the Government of India and a suspension order had been passed in respect of it. It is alleged that out of the three cases consigned from Geneva, only one case marked GL/11 consisting of three lakh carat white synthetic stones arrived in India of which delivery was taken by the defendant, but he did not give plaintiffs their share out of it nor did he render any account of its disposal. Thereupon on 19th May, 1943, plaintiffs moved the Jewellers Association, Jaipur, to settle their dispute but on 23rd November, 1943, after some proceedings, the Association also expressed its inability to decide the matter and so the present suit has been filed. The defendant contested the suit, denied the agreement of partnership between the parties through Gordhan Das and stated that after he had placed an order for the supply of Synthetic stones with Georges Lambercier. Gordhan Das plaintiff expressed his desire that some portion of the Synthetic stones ordered from Georges Lambercier be also given to him, and he agreed to give him six annas share in stones provided he also gave him 2000 totals of the imitation stone which had been imported by him before the war at its cost price in case he so required it. It was also stated that no consignment of synthetic stone was received from Georges Lambercier nor did the plaintiffs give any goods to the defendant. It was pleaded that Georges Lambercier had been declared an enemy firm in 1941, and, therefore no agreement of partnership could be made or continued for importing stones from that firm and that no suit concerning that partnership was maintainable. The alleged partnership in either case had become illegal.
(3.) ON the above pleadings, the learned Judge framed the followingissues : 1. Whether in July 1941 a partnership was formed between the parties in terms of para. No. 2 of the plaint? 2. Whether in pursuance of the contract and past correspondence, an order for 10 Lakh carats white and one lakh carat of lemon colour imitation stones was placed with Georges Lambercier? 3. Whether case No. GL/11 imported by the defendant belonged to the partnership? 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? 5. Whether in 1941 Georges Lambercier was declared enemy firm, and therefore no partnership could be formed for importing stones from that firm, nor a suit is maintainable on the basis of such a partnership? 6. Whether, because the goods have been imported from outside the country, this Court has no jurisdiction? 7. Relief? ;