GOPI NATH Vs. SATISH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants's appeal against whom a preliminary decree directing him to render accounts of the firm Ram Ratan Shyam Manohar from the year 1928 has been passed.

(2.) The plaintiff came to the Court with the allegation that his father Shyam Manohar Lal and his grandfather Ram Ratan Lal were members of a joint Hindu family and carried un Sarafa business; that the defendant Gopinath who was an experienced hand in the wholesale cloth business persuaded the plaintiff's father and his grandfather to start a firm in the name and style of Ram Ratan Shyam. Manohar dealing in cloth business; that the said firm was started in the year 1918 and Gopinath defendant was taken in as a partner in the said firm.

(3.) According to plaintiff's case the joint family of the plaintiff was to share the profits and losses to the extent of one half share and the defendant was to share the profits and losses to the extent of one half. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff's joint family was to finance the business and was to get interest at the rate of 10% per annum on their investment, while the defendant on account of his past experience was to manage the business and to remain in charge of the same and the duly of maintaining proper and regular account books of the business was that of the defendant and he was also under a duty lq explain the accounts of the business to the joint family whenever asked to do so. The plaintiff's case further was that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was invested by the joint family in the said firm. It was further alleged that in the year 1928 Shyam Manohar plaintiff's father died when the plaintiff himself was a minor. It was also alleged that the grandfather of the plaintiff Ram Ratan Lal who has an old man was not interested in the affairs of the family and he being shocked by the death of his only son did not look after the interests of the family properly, thus giving Gopinath a free hand to deal with the joint family investment in the firm. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that after the death of his grandfather Ram Ratan in 1934 his mother Smt. Phula Devi was appointed as his certificated guardian by the District Judge of Farrukhabad and she without understanding the proper accounts and on the persuasion of Mahesh Prasad, the maternal uncle of the plaintiff executed a deed of agreement in settlement of the final accounts of the partnership firm and as this agreement was brought about by fraud and undue influence it was not binding on the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the agreement was against plaintiff's interest inasmuch as Smt. Phula Devi was persuaded to settle the accounts on payment of a very small sum. According to the plaintiff he attained majority on the 16th July 1948 and called upon the defendant to render and explain the accounts but he did not pay any heed. The plaintiff eventually was compelled to send a telegraphic notice and as well as a registered notice to the defendant for rendering to him the accounts and as the defendant failed to do the same, hence the suit. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant utilised all the assets of the said firm in his own firm but this case seems to have been given up at the trial.