The right to dissolve a partnership at will is a legal right under the Contract Act and the contract, not an equitable relief; therefore, it cannot be denied on the grounds of the partner's misconduct or fraud.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 29 of 1923) from a decree of the High Court (May 19, 1919) reversing a decree of the District Judge of Delhi.

The appellant sued the respondent for a declaration that a partnership between them was dissolved, and for accounts, and other relief. The respondent pleaded that it was a term of the partnership (which was verbal) that there should be no dissolution without his consent, he denied the alleged terms of the partnership, and further alleged specified acts of misconduct by the plaintiff in relation to the books of account, and the business of the partnership; he contended that the respondent was not entitled to any relief.

The District Judge of Delhi, who tried the suit, found that no time had been fixed for the duration of the partnership, and that it had been duly determined by the plaintiff by notice. He further found that certain entries in the books of account were forgeries by the plaintiff, and that other entries as to interest were wrong. He made a preliminary decree declaring the shares of the partners in the

Law. Rep. 51 Ind. App. 154 ( 1923- 1924)

Ram Singh V. Ram C hand 220

partnership, and that the partnership was to be deemed dissolved on February 11, 1911; he also gave directions for taking accounts, one of those directions containing his finding above mentioned with regard to the false entries.

An appeal to the High Court and cross-objections were heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Henry Rattigan) and Abdul Raoof J. The learned judges found that the plaintiff had burnt the old account books relating to the period before 1897 ; that several entries in the books produced were interpolations and forgeries by the appellant, and that in consequence the account books were wholly worthless and unreliable ; and that he had been guilty of other misconduct in relation to the firms affairs. They were of opinion that having regard to the plaintiffs misconduct he was not entitled to come to the Court for the relief which he prayed.

1923. Oct. 30. Dube and Bishan Narain for the appellant.

De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the respondent.

The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD DUNEDIN. This case is of the simplest nature. A gentleman who has a partnership at will brings a suit for a declaration of dissolution. The learned judge of the District Court before whom the case depends finds and it is declared " that this partnership shall be deemed to have been dissolved on February 11, 1911, the date of the notice of the plaintiff to the defendant," and then he makes a declaration in ordinary form as to accounts being taken, but he puts in one particular finding, No. 3 " An account of all dealings and transactions between plaintiff and defendant from December, 1897, with the instructions that the debit of Rs. 7559 against defendant and credit of Rs. 3133 in plain tiffs favour are forgeries and are to be struck off, and all entries relating to interest payable to either party are wrong."

Both parties appealed against that decree. On appeal, so far as the finding of fraud is concerned, the High Court are entirely in accordance with the learned judge, and they say in their judgment " From the evidence on the record it is therefore clear that the plaintiff has been guilty of gross misconduct. He has destroyed the old account books, has falsely prepared a balance sheet, has made false entries in the books and has tried to deprive the firm of a valuable asset."

If they had stayed there all would have been well, but they go on to say this " Having done all this he has had the audacity of coming into Court with a prayer for an equitable relief."

But it is not an equitable relief for which he is asking. When it is a partnership at will a partner is entitled to dissolution ; it is a legal right, under the Contract Act and under the contract. Then the learned judges quote a decision of the Chief Court referring to a passage from " Lindley on Partnership " which deals with the circumstances in which a Court ma