RAMNARAYAN Vs. KASHINATH JAGNARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is presented on behalf of the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra dated 24-7-1948.

(2.) The plaintiff Kashinath Jagnani and the defendants Ramnarain, Ramkumar and Dhanraj agreed to carry on a joint business in salt under the name of a partnership called Ramchandar Ramkumar of Mairwa. On 11-2-1944 the parties executed a deed of partnership according to which the share of the plaintiff was 12 annas and the share of the defendants was 4 annas. It was agreed that plaintiff would contribute the entire capital and the defendants would contribute skill and labour in carrying on the salt trade. The plaintiff agreed in the first instance to contribute an amount of Rs. 10,000, of which a sum of Rs. 5000 was paid by him as contribution towards the Red Cross Fund. The partnership had no smooth course. Ill-feeling arose between the partners and on 23-3-1943 the plaintiff complained before the Sub-divisional Officer of Siwan that the defendants had removed account books of the firm and prevented the plaintiff from making an inspection. The matter was compromised at the intervention of the Sub-divisional Officer and a fresh registered deed of partnership was drawn up on 12-4-1945. It was now agreed between the parties that the plaintiff's share would be eight annas and not twelve annas in the profits and that the partnership would continue till the parties secured separate agencies for salt. The plaintiff alleged that subsequent to the execution of the deed of partnership the defendants attempted to monopolise the salt business and prevented the plaintiff from taking any part in the affairs of the partnership. On 12-9-1945 the defendants filed a petition before the District Magistrate asking that the plaintiff should be restrained from taking delivery of a consignment of salt which had been despatched in the name of the partnership of Ramchandar Ramkumar. The petition was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Sub-divisional Officer who started proceedings under Section 144, Criminal P. C. The plaintiff appeared in response to the notice and claimed that the consignment of the salt should be delivered half and half to the parties since there was no dissolution of the partnership. The defendants filed a rejoinder petition stating that they had taken delivery of the whole consignment of salt. The proceedings were dropped by the Sub-divisional Officer but on 8-11-1945 the District Magistrate ordered that the salt agency would continue in the name of the firm Ramchandra Ramkumar and separate agency would not be granted to the plaintiff. As the partnership could not be continued in view of the strained feelings between the partners, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts to be taken of the partnership business. The defendants contested the suit mainly on the ground that the partnership was dissolved on 18-5-1945 and accounting was made and the dues of the plaintiff were fully paid off. It was claimed on behalf of the defendants that after 18-5-1945 till 10-9-1945 the parties carried on separate business in salt. It was admitted that after 10-9-1945 the plaintiff was not permitted to take delivery of any consignment of salt since the District Magistrate had refused to grant separate agency to the plaintiff. Upon a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the learned Subordinate Judge held that the partnership was not dissolved on 18-5-1945 that the partnership was, on the contrary, still subsisting and that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for dissolution of the partnership and for taking of the accounts of the partnership business from 12-4-1945 "up to the date of the actual dissolution of the business of the firm and the taking of the accounts by the pleader commissioner.

(3.) The first and principal question in this appeal is whether there was dissolution of the partnership on 18-5-1945 and whether there was adjustment of accounts between the partners on that date. On this question the defendants placed much reliance on the khata bahis, exhibits E and C, which show that on 18-5-1946 there was settlement of accounts of the partnership and that as a result of the accounting a sum of Rs. 21/13/- was paid in cash and a sum of Rs. 5 was set off on account of the share of the defendants out of Rs. 20, being the price of two choukis. The Subordinate Judge held that the bahi khatas, exhibits B and C were forged on the ground that there were mistakes and alterations on several pages of the document. (His Lordship discussed the documentary and the oral evidence and proceeded as follows:) The Subordinate Judge has commented that neither D, W. 7 nor D. W. 8 impressed him as truthful or reliable person. It is not suggested on behalf of the appellants that the Subordinate Judge has omitted to notice any special feature in their evidence or that he has failed to assess the proper hearing of the other circumstances of the case. In a matter of this description, where there is conflict of oral evidence, great importance must be attached to the opinion of the trial Judge who had the privilege of seeing the witnesses and observing the manner in which their evidence has been given.