Judgment-

SHAH

( 1 ) SANTARAM-HEREINAFTER called the plaintiff-commenced an action in the City Civil court at Bombay against his yonger brother Arjun for an order winding up a partnership in respect of a business carried on by them in the name of "hindmata Printing Press", Bombay and for account of the business. It was the case of the plaintiff that the business was started by him in 1937 and that the defendant-his brother-joined him some time later and assisted him in carrying on the business ; that by agreement, dated 16/03/1953, the defendant was admitted as a partner in the business with equal share in the profits and losses of the business, but without anyinterest in the machinery, goodwill and the premises which were to be utilised for the purpose of partnership ; that under the terms of the partner- ship the defendant was carrying on the business; and that disputes arose between the parties and the business could not be carried on and accordingly the plaintiff served a notice, dated April 19, 195 7 terminating the partner- ship.

( 2 ). The defendant by his written statement contended that he started business of the Hindmata Printing Press and admitted the plaintiff as a partner ; that the assets of the business and several immovable properties were acquired with the aid of profits arising from that business ; that the business was managed jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant and that the plaintiff and the defendant had equal share in the profits, losses and all assets, articles and properties of the-business ; that by deed, dated 16/03/1953, the terms of the partnership were recorded, and that the account of the profits and goodwill and assets including the tenancy rights in the premises in which the business was carried on should be taken.

( 3 ). The Trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit and made a preliminary decree for accounts of the partnership declaring that the partnership was dissolved on 16/04/1957 and referred the suit to the Commissioner for taking accounts. The learned Trial Judge declared that in the assets of the firm including the goodwill, tenancy rights, machinery and articles described in Ex. A to the plaint and the immovable properties described in Ex. No. I to the written statement the partnership had no interest. He further declared that the plaintiff and the defendant had equal shares in the profits and losses of the firm, but not in the assets of the business. In appeal the high court of Bombay confirmed the decree passed by the City Civil court. With special leave, the defendant has appealed to this court.

( 4 ). The learned Trial Judge relied upon a number of circumstances in holding that the business and its assets belonged to the plaintiff exclusively till 16/03/1953 and the defendant had no interest therein. He held that the plaintiff brought in the initial capital to start the business ; that the rent and bills for consumption of electricity in the premises were received in the name of the plaintiff ; that the plaintiff opened bank accounts as sole proprietor of the Hindmata Printing Press ; that policies of insurance were taken out by the plaintiff in respect of the assets of the business as the sole proprietor of the business ; that invitation cards for the opening of new branch of the business were issued in the name of the plaintiff alone, that in the muster rolls the plaintiff was described in entries made in the handwriting of the defendant as the owner, and the defendant as the "brother of the owner" ; and that the income-tax assessments of the business for 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 were made in the name of the Hindmata Printing Press and the plaintiff was shown as the proprietor. The learned Judge found that in an entry in the roznamcha, dated 2/09/1949, the word "malkanchi" used in posting the entries for withdrawals made for household expenses referred to the plaintiff when he withdrew the money for his household expenses, or sent it to his wife or spent for his own when h