Judgment

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:- The appellant, Gattu Lal entered into a partnership with Jagdeo Singh to work a forest to manufacture coal, the forest having been taken on lease by Jagdeo Singh from Thakur Lallu Singh. The partnership was for a period of five years from June 28, 1943 and the agreement of partnership was oral. About three months after the formation of the partnership, Jagdeo Singh assumed exclusive control of the forest and altogether excluded Gattu Lal from any benefit in the partnership. Thereafter on July 13, 1944, Gattu Lal entered into what is described by the courts below as sub-partnership with Thakur Gulab Singh, the son of Lallu Singh aged about 19 or 20 years at that time. It is not disputed and indeed it cannot possibly be disputed that the arrangement was really with Thakur Lallu Singh, the father, but in the name of Thakur Gulab Singh, the son. This is obvious from a reading of the evidence of Gulab Singh himself. The deed of sub-partnership recited the circumstance that Gattu Lal had entered into a partnership with Jagdeo Singh for working the Hathibar forest to manufacture coal and that each of them had an eight annas share therein. By the deed of sub-partnership, Gulab Singh was given a half share in the eight annas share of Gattu Lal. Gattu Lal was to be entitled to his share of the profits and losses from the date of the sub-partnership. It was then recited in the deed of sub-partnership that Jagdeo Singh was giving some trouble and that the partnership of Gattu Lal and Jagdeo Singh had not been reduced to writing and got registered. If Jagdeo Singh persisted in his attitude, Gattu Lal would have to take legal action against him. If thereafter possession of the forest was obtained then Gulab Singh and Gattu Lal were to carry on the partnership business each having a half share in the profits and losses. Gulab Singh was to supply the funds whenever Gattu Lal so demanded. If Gulab Singh refused or hesitated to supply the funds, Gattu Lal had the right to break the partnership. If Gattu Lal was to take legal action against Jagdeo Singh, Gulab Singh was to bear all expenses and after accounts were settled Gulab Singh and Gattu Lal were liable each for one half at the time of making the accounts of the partnership firm Gulab Singh Gattu Lal. The partnership was to last for five years which term could be extended by mutual consent. A few days earlier, Gattu Lal had executed a Chhithi referring to the proposed sub-partnership and acknowledging receipt of a sum of Rs. 251/- for meeting the expenses. In this chhithi also, it was stated that if the dispute between Jagdeo Singh and Gattu Lal was not settled mutually and if Gattu Lal was required to file a suit, Gulab Singh was to bear all the expenses which might have to be incurred. Thereafter the amount was to be adjusted half and half in the accounts. Notwithstanding the so-called sub-partnership, nothing further happened and Jagdeo Singh continued to work the forest and manufacture coal all by himself, to the total exclusion of Gattu Lal. Ultimately Gattu Lal was forced to file a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against Jagdeo Singh. A preliminary decree was passed on July 7,1952. An appeal and second appeal by Jagdeo Singh were dismissed. A final decree for Rs. 3,63,836/- was passed by the Trial Court in favour of Gattu Lal. On appeal by Jagdeo Singh and further second appeal by him to the High Court, the amount was reduced to Rs. 2,86,078.62P and costs. The SC refused to grant special leave against the judgment of the High Court which thus became final. It is the admitted case of the parties that neither Lallu Singh nor Gulab Singh contributed even a pie towards the expenses of litigation. In fact, apart from the sum of Rs. 251/- said to have been paid to Gattu Lal at the time of the passing of the chhithi, it is not claimed by Gulab Singh that any other or further amount was ever paid by Gulab Singh or Lallu Singh to Gat