Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.9.1962 passed by the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Ara in Title Suit Nos. 32 of 1957/5 of 1962 whereby the Court below dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit.

2. It may be mentioned here that this First Appeal was decided by this Court by judgment and decree dated 21.8.1997 whereby the First Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. Against the judgment and decree, L.P.A. was filed by the plaintiffs. The L.P.A. Court also dismissed the L.P.A. on 7.1.1998 and confirmed the judgment passed by the Single Judge. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 6062 of 1998. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by terms of judgment dated 15.7.2004 passed the following order:

"We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restore First Appeal No. 943/1971 to the file of the Patna High Court. The High Court will decide on basis of available evidence and material whether the Trial Court has correctly answered issue Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. It is clarified that the question of accounts under issue no. 6 will only be on the footing that there was a joint venture and not on footing of a partnership.

The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."

3. After the judgment of the High Court, the appeal remain pending before the High Court because the respondents and other parties died and substitution were made and fresh notice were issued to the substituted respondents.

4. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the aforesaid suit claiming the following reliefs:

(i) A decree for partition of half and half share of either party in Schedule-A after ascertaining the assets and liabilities of the Cinema business and also accounts against the defendants after winding up the Cinema business named Alka Theatre, Buxar and if it is found necessary, a decree for dissolution of the said joint venture of partnership be passed,

(ii) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs,

(iii) Any other or further relief to which the plaintiff may be entitled to get be awarded to them."

5. It may be mentioned here that plaintiff No. 1 was Sri Hari Mohan Prasad aid the other 3 plaintiffs were his minor sons. The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that the plaintiffs purchased 6 kathas 17½ dhurs of land for the purpose of constructing a Cinema house. The defendants also purchased same area of land for the same object and thereafter the plaintiff and defendant agreed to combine in the venture. By 3rd of July, 1954, for constructing the Cinema house, the plaintiffs spent Rs. 83,561, 3 Anna and odd. The defendant had spent Rs. 61,478, 3 Anna and odd over construction and equipment of Cinema house. This joint venture was managed by the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 4 being the karta of their respective joint families. The plaintiffs started the venture in the name of his minor sons and the defendant No. 4 in the name of the female members of his family, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are wives of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. A deed of partnership was executed between plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 under the guardianship of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 3.7.1954 wherein it was agreed that the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall have 8 Anna share in the Cinema business. It was also agreed that both the parties shall invest equal capital. The further case is that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were to manage the Cinema business namely Alka Theatre and will remain in-charge thereof and after opening of the Cinema house in September, 1956, they have been managing the Cinema business and are receiving profits. In spite of demand neither account was provided nor the defendants partitioned. Hence, the suit was filed.

6. The defendant Nos. 2 and 4 filed joint written statement