BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THE only point in this Civil Second Appeal is one of limitation. It is admitted that there was a partnership between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent for prospecting corrundum in a certain area after obtaining a prospecting licence. THE prospecting licence expired on 21-6-1948, but even before its expiry no prospecting operations were carried out after 15th of April, 1948 on account of losses. On 4th of July, 1955 the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging that the partnership business had resulted in a loss in which the share of the losses of the defendant came to Rs. 4,652-10-0. THE plaintiff prayed that in case the court came to the finding that the partnership was not dissolved, the partnership be ordered to be dissolved. It was further prayed that after taking accounts a decree for Rs. 4,652-10-0 be awarded to the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant. THE trial court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff, but on appeal by the defendant, the suit was dismissed as barred by limitation. THE lower appellate court has held that the partnership was dissolved on the 15th of April, 1948 or at the latest on the 21st of June, 1948 and the suit for accounts was governed by Art. 106 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and was barred under that Article as it was filed more than 3 years after the date of the dissolution.
(2.) IN this appeal, it is contended that the lower appellate court has gone wrong in holding that the partnership was dissolved on or before the 21st of June, 1948. But this contention has got no force in view of the clear statement in the plaint that the partnership was dissolved on the 15th of April, 1948. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is a novel contention. His argument is that Art. 106 is applicable only to a suit in which the plaintiff claims a share of the profits of the dissolved partnership, and as in this case, the plaintiff was claiming not a share of the profits of a partnership, but a share of the losses of a dissolved partnership, Art. 106 was not applicable but Art. 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable. He has laid much stress on the phraseology of Art. 106 and urged that the plain meaning of the words in the first column of Art. 106 is that to attract its application, there must be a suit for an account and a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership. The contention is that as there is no prayer in this case for a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership, Art. 106 is not attracted. This contention, in my opinion, cannot be sustained. 'suit for account between the partners of a dissolved partnership firm' has a very wide connotation. Sec. 46 of the Indian Partnership Act provides that - "on the dissolution of a firm every partner or his representative is entitled, as against all the other partners or their representatives, to have the property of the firm applied in payment of the debts and liabilities of the firm and to have the surplus distributed among the part ners or their representatives according to their rights. " Sec. 48 of the Indian Partnership Act further lays down certain rules which are to be followed subject to agreement by the partners, in settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution. Then Sec. 55 provides for the sale of goodwill after dissolution. In other words, what is envisaged in a suit for account of dissolved partnership is to pass a decree finally adjusting the rights and liabilities of the partners. Any partner of a firm may ask for such final adjustment of rights and liabilities of the partners of the firm by filing a suit for account. Naturally in such a suit, if there have resulted losses in the business of the dissolved partnership, those losses are to be shared. If the entire accounting shows that the business has resulted in profits, then profits are to be shared. All this has to be decided when the prayer in the suit is for an account of partnership. Art. 106 is attracted to such a suit and it is not necessary that the plaintiff must necessarily make a prayer for a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership. That prayer is ancillary to the main prayer for accounting. The words 'a share of the profits of a dissolved firm' really mean a share of the profits if there are any profits found after accounting. If there is a prayer for accounting and if the plaintiff considers that the business has resulted in a loss, it is not necessary to make a prayer for sharing of losses and even without such a prayer losses shall have to be determined and adjusted between the partners. The prayer for sharing the losses is also ancillary. The suit for account carries with it the consequences of sharing by partners profits or losses as the case may be. If in substance the suit is a suit for account, Art. 106 is attracted and the words 'a share of profits' are merely a surplusage and do not in any way abridge the meaning to be assigned to the words 'for account'. It may be pointed out that the words Tor account' do not mean merely to render an account but must include the payment of any balance which may be found due from one party to another. Reference may be made in this connection to the following observations of Peacock G. J. in Kalee Kishan Paul Chowdhry vs. Mst. Juggut Tara (1): "in using the word "account", I use it in its legal sense as not confined merely to rendering an account of what he has done with the moneys, but as including the payment of any balance which might be found due from him upon taking the accounts. " In my opinion, Art. 106 has been correctly applied by the lower courts to the facts and circumstances of the case and the plaintiff is barred by time. The appeal has got no fores and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant prays for leave to appeal to a Division Bench. Prayer is refused. .;