JUDGMENT

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. :— This is an unfortunate litigation between near relations and this litigation between the parties is now going on for over four decades.

2. These two appeals have been filed with the certificate granted by the High Court against the judgment of the High Court by the plaintiff in the suit instituted by him for partition of joint family properties, for accounts and other reliefs mentioned in the plaint.

3. By a common judgment delivered by the High Court in two separate appeals filed by the defendants in the suit against the judgment of the Trial Court, the High Court has substantially reversed the judgment of Trial Court.

4. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgment of the Trial Court and also in the judgment of the High Court. We shall briefly indicate the facts material for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals. As the High Court disposed of both the appeals by one common judgment and the two appeals which have been preferred against the same judgment have been heard together, this judgment will dispose of both the appeals.

5. One Pandharinath Martand Sulakhe died leaving behind him his sons Viswanath, Gopal, Govind and Bhagwant and considerable properties. The properties left by him included agricultural lands, a number of houses in Barshi and three shops. Of the three shops one was a Sarafi shop at Barshi, another cloth shop at Basri and the other a commission Agency and Sarafi shop at Bombay. Business in all these three shops was carried on in the name of P. N. Sulakhe. Of the four sons Vishwanath died in 1910 leaving behind him his son Dattatraya who happens to be the second defendant in the suit. Govind, one of the brothers who constituted a joint family after the death of their father Pandarinath Sulakhe, separated from the joint family in 1914 taking his share of the family properties. Though Govind separated in 1914, the other brothers and the sons of Vishwanath continued to remain joint and lived as members of the joint family. Bhagwant who filed a suit for partition as the plaintiff was the youngest of the four brothers. He graduated in law in the year 1914 and commenced practice as a lawyer at about that time.

6. In 1922, a public limited company named Lokmanya Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was intended to be floated and with that end in view, the defendant No. 2 Dattatraya and the plaintiff Bhagwant entered into a partnership under the name and style of M/s. Sulakhe & Co. with four outsiders. A Managing agency agreement between the company and the partnership firm of Sulakhe & Company was executed. The mill actually went into production in 1938. On the basis of the managing agency agreement between the company and the firm of Sulakhe & Co. the defendant No. 2 Dattatraya acted as the managing Agent up to 1935 and thereafter the plaintiff Bhagwant became the managing Agent. Sometime after the plaintiff Bhagwant had been appointed the managing agent, the defendant No. 2 Dattatraya was appointed as the Director of the Company. It appears that in the year 1935, a new Adat shop had been started at Barsi. All the shops were run in the name of P. N. Sulakhe. It is not in dispute that all the shops were joint family businesses. It is also not in dispute that the remuneration paid to the defendant No. 2 and also the plaintiff Bhagwant as managing Agent and also the amount of commission falling to the shares of defendant No. 2 Dattatraya and the plaintiff Bhagwant out of the commission earned by the managing agency firm were treated as joint family properties and were shown in the joint family books so long as disputes between the parties had not arisen. During the period when there were no disputes between the parties, the Directors fees paid to defendant No. 2 Dattatraya and the plaintiff Bhagwant were treated as income of the joint family and even the professional income of the plaintiff Bhagwant earned by him as a lawyer was also thrown into th