The partnership did not stand dissolved upon the death of any partner, and the legal heirs were entitled to profits and responsible for losses until the end of the accounting period. The cause of action continued from day to day, and the suit was not time-barred. However, as none of the reliefs claimed in the plaint could be granted in law, the court rejected the plaint.

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. These two appeals are directed against the Judgment and order dated 22.09.2017 passed in GA No. 1680 of 2017 and GA No.1571 of 2017 whereby the said two applications were dismissed. GA No. 1688 of 2017 was taken out by the defendant number 3. GA No. 1571 of 2017 was taken out by the defendant numbers 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. In both the applications the prayers were for dismissal of the suit; alternatively for rejection of the plaint; and alternatively for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865

2. Baijnath Jalan, Mohanlal Jalan, Babulal Jalan, Sewbhagwan Jalan Keshabdeo Jalan, Nand Kishore Jalan, Deokinandan Jalan, Chiranjilal Bajoria, and Kishorilal Jalan were the partners of a partnership firm constituted in terms of a deed of partnership dated 6 December, 1943. The firm was called ‘Soorajmull Nagarmull’. None of the said partners are alive. The plaintiff numbers 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of Late Chiranjilal Bajoria, who died on 31 December, 1981. The plaintiff numbers 4 and 5 are the sons of Late Deokinandan Jalan, who died on 12 July 1997. The plaintiff number 6 is the son of Late Mohanlal Jalan who died on 1 May, 1982. The defendants are the legal heirs of the other initial partners of the said firm.

3. The plaintiffs filled C.S No. 17 of 2017 claiming inter alia the following reliefs against the defendants:-

(a) Decree for declaration that the plaintiffs along with the defendants are entitled to the assets and properties of the firm “Soorajmull NagarMull” as the heirs of the original partners of the reconstituted firm under the partnership deed dated 6th December, 1943, in the share of the said original partners as mentioned in paragraph 2 above;

(b) Decree for declaration that the plaintiffs along with the defendants are consequently entitled to represent the firm in all proceedings before the concerned authorities of the State of Bihar for the acquisition of its Bhagalpur land;

(c) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 or any of the other defendants from in any manner representing or holding themselves out to be the authorised representative of the firm or the repository of all its authority, moneys assets and properties or from seeking to represent the firm in its dealings and transactions in respect of any of its assets and properties including the acquisition proceeding of the firm’s Bhagalpur land or from receiving any monies on behalf of the firm, whether on account of compensation for its Bhagalpur land or otherwise;

(d) Decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to disclose full particulars of all assets and properties of the firm, full particulars of all its dealings and transactions including any dealing or transaction concerning any asset or property of the firm, and full accounts of the firm for the purpose of its dissolution.

(e) Decree for the dissolution of the firm Soorajmull Nagarmull and for the winding up of its affairs upon realising the assets and properties of the firm, collecting all moneys due to the firm, applying the same in paying the debts of the firm, if any, in paying the capital contributed by any partner and thereafter by dividing the residue amongst the heirs of the original partners in the shares to which they were entitled to the profits of the firm in terms of the Partnership Deed dated 6th December, 1943.”

4. As aforesaid, two applications were filled for rejection of the plaint. Both the applications were dismissed by the judgment and order impugned in these appeals.

5. Appearing in A.P.O. No. 491 of 2017 for the appellant, Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Learned Senior Advocate submitted that firstly, the plaint does not disclose any such cause of action; secondly, the relief’s claimed are barred by limitation; and thirdly, the reliefs claimed in the plaint are not maintainable in law. According to Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, the plaint should be taken off the record and the defe