A partner of a dissolved partnership does not become a sole proprietor of the assets and claims of the partnership firm unless there is an agreement to that effect.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order of Banerjee, J. , dated March 26, 1963, rejecting the appellant's application for a rule nisi under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE appellant claims to be the sole proprietor of a firm known as Unity Production, (hereinafter referred to as the firm ). It is alleged that this firm was a partnership firm of which the appellant and one Ramesawar Sharma were the partners. This firm was carrying on business as film producers at 20. Baburam Ghose Road, Tollygunge, Calcutta. The firm was a tenant under one Kanahayalal Kauodia, since deceased, in respect of a studio at the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 12,500/ -. In May, 1943, the said premises No. 20, Baburam Ghose Road were requisitioned under Rule 75 (a) of the Defence of India Rules. Possession was taken of the said premises on August 11, 1943, from the said firm. This requisition was made for and on behalf of the Government of India. Claim for compensation was made both by the said firm and the said Kanahayalal Kanodia. The firm made a claim for compensation and loss of business in the sum of Rs. 11,54,622/5/6 per year before the Land Acquisition Collector and the said Kanahayalal Kanodia, since deceased, also filed a separate claim against the Government of West Bengal for compensation. The Collector held that Rs. 1000/- per month would be reasonable compensation for the requteition of the premises and awarded the sum in favour of the firm, and he further held that the said Kanahayalal Kanodia was not entitled to any part of the sum although he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- per month.

( 3 ) AGAINST the said order of the Collector awarding compensation both the firm and the said Kanahayalal Kanodia obtained orders for a reference to an arbitrator appointed under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939. Reference on behalf of the firm was numbered as Case No. 113 of 1944 and that on behalf of Kanahayalal Kanodia was numbered as Case No. 21 of 1945.

( 4 ) ON February 18, 1948, the arbitrator disposed of both the references by one award by which he held as follows:--"kanodia only purchased from the Receiver the film corporation's assets. He had no leasehold interest in the premises at the material time. That being so, Unity Production had no such interest either. . . . I hold that Kanodia and Unity Production are not entitled to the amounts for compensation claimed by them in these cases, viz. , Rs. 12,500/- per month, which Kanodia said he was receiving from Unity Production and the several lakhs of rupees which Unity Production demands for loss of business profits and for incidental expenses. I reject these claims. The Collector's offer of Rs. 1000 per month as rent of the premises remains unaffected by this decision. Whoever is entitled to that may draw it without prejudice. "

( 5 ) THE firm did not prefer any appeal against the award and therefore this award in so far it governed the reference by the firm (Case No. 113 of 1944) became final. But the heirs and legal representatives of Kanodia who had died meanwhile, appealed against the award in so far it related to Case No. 21 of 1945. This appeal came up for hearing before Ramaprosad Mukherjee and Renupada Mukherjee, JJ. This appeal was allowed and the award in Case No. 21 of 1945 was set aside and the case was remitted to the arbitrator for trial of the remaining issues and for determining the compensation payable to the appellant-claimant. The firm, however, received a sum of about Rs. 44,000/- in terms of the order of the Collector as upheld by the award, for monthly compensation. After the said order for remission of the reference by the Division Bench of this Court, the reference was taken up by several arbitrators and the appellant applied for permission to proceed with his claim alleging that the award in his case had been set aside by the Division Bench. It was contended on his behalf that the Reference Case No. 113