- (1.) This is a special appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of C. B. Bhargawa J. whereby he reversed the judgment and decree of the District Judge Jaipur, in favour of the plaintiffs and, instead, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs to the defendants throughout.
(2.) The suit which was dismissed as aforesaid was brought by firm Ram Narain Damodar and its proprietors, Dwarka Das and Gordhan Das, against the defendant, Damodar Das for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts on the avernments that in July 1941, the parties entered into an oral partnership thereby agreeing to share profits and bear losses of the business of import from George Lambercier of Geneva, Switezerland, of rough sythetic stones, in the ratio of six annas and ten annas, respectively. It was agreed that the defendant who was already in correspondence with George Lambercier for such import would inform the plaintiffs about the arrival of the consingment in India and thereupon the parties were to share the costs price of the goods in proportion to their respective shares. Acting on behalf of the partnership firm, the defendant placed an order with George Lambercier in July, 1941, for the supply of 10 lac carats of white stone and 1 lac carats of yellow stone. George Lambercier despatched from Geneva 9 lac carats of white stone in November 1941. The goods were despatched in three different wooden cases marked GL/11. GL/12, and GL/13. It appears that out of these three wooden cases, only one viz, GL/11 shipped on board SS Loch Dee, arrived in Bombay in February 1943. The defendant repudiated the partnership in April 1943, and refused to give the plaintiffs their share of six annas out of the white stones contained in this case. The plaintiffs referred, the dispute for settlement by the Jewellers Association Jaipur on May 19, 1943. The said Association expressed its inability to settle it on November 24, 1943. The plaintiffs filed the suit, giving rise to this special appeal, in the court of District Judge Jaipur on April 13, 1944. One of the reliefs they sought was a declaration to the effect that they were entitled to a six annas share in the semiprecious stones received by the defendant in the wooden case, marked GL/11. They also prayed for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts of this transaction.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement in answer to it. He admitted that in July, 1941, he had agreed to give the pontiff, Gordhan Das, six annas share out of the semi-precious stones for which he had already placed an order with George Lambercier. He however pleaded that one of the conditions of this partnership with Gordhan Das was that the latter would give him 2000 toals of imitation stones imported by him at pre-war prices. He further pleaded that he had not imported any semi-precious stones from George Lambercier as alleged, and that the plaintiffs did not give him 2000 toals of imitation stones as promised. He also averred that George Lambercier was declared by the Central Government in 1941 to be an "enemy" under the Defence of India Rules. 1939, and that therefore the partnership between the parties for importing semi precious stones from him had become unlawful and void. He pleaded that the suit based on the partnership in question which had become unlawful could not be maintained.;