A partnership can be dissolved by consent of the partners, in accordance with the contract between the partners, or by the court under Section 44 of the Partnership Act, 1932.

( 1 ) THE parties to this appeal are brothers who had entered into a partnership on 11th January, 1964. The business was to be carried on under the name and style of M/s. Gupta Handloom Stores on certain terms and conditions which will be analysed later to the extent necessary in this appeal. R am Rattan, the respondent in this appeal instituted a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts slating that he had become a T. B. patient and had not been able to look after the business of the firm and, the defendant had taken some illegal steps to expel him from the business and had fabricated books of account and removed a major portion of the assets. Further, it was alleged that disputes had arisen between the parties and a reference was made to arbitration, but the arbitrators were unable to reach any decision. The plaintiff wanted a decree for dissolutisn of partnership and rendition of accounts. Kali Ram. the present appellant resisted the suit and claimed that he had served a notice on the plaintiff on 4th November, 1966, intimating that the partnership stood dissolved. He also contended that the capital investment of the plaintiff had been withdrawn and in fact, about Rs. 2,800. 00 was due from the plaintiff to the defendant. Only two issues were framed by the court which were :--

"1. What is the period of accounts ? Opp. Parties. 2. Relief. "it is surprising that the court did not frame any issue regarding the contention of the defendant that the partnership already stood dissolved. In fact, suit being a suit for dissolution of partnership required a decision whether the partnership was already dissolved or not. In any case, in dealing with the question as to what was the period of accounting, the trial court did give a finding to the effect that the partnership was not one at will and was to be dissolved by the court under Section 44 of the Partnership Act, 1932. It was held that the partnership would stand dissolved from the date of the judgment. It was further stated that the partnership started on 11th January, 1964, and the period of accounts was from 11th January, 1964, to 11th March, 1970. This latter date is the date of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court very carefully and cannot find from there what is the ground for dissolving the partnership. A partnership at will can be dissolved by one of the partners giving a notice to the others, but other partnerships. can only be dissolved by the consent of all the partners or by the death or insolvency of one of them. Undoubtedly, such a partnership can also be dissolved by the Court under Section 44 of the Partnership Act, 1932. Although, the trial court held that the partnership was being dissolved by the court under Section 44, it has not at all disclosed on what ground the partnership was being dissolved. As a matter of fact. Section 44 of the Partnership Act, 1932, is analogous to the provisions of the Companies Act regarding the winding up of companies. A partnership can only be dissolved on the specific grounds mentioned in Section 44 of the Act. I do not find from the judgment that there was any issue relating to the existence of a ground for dissolving the partnership and nor do I find any material on record to show that either party alleged or proved any of the grounds mentioned in Section 44. In fact, strictly speaking, if the court came to the conclusion that the partnership was not at will, then the partnership could only be dissolved on a finding that one of the grounds mentioned in Section 44 was proved. The court has no general power of dissolving partnerships. and could not dissolve a partnership without a finding in accordance with Section 44 of the Partnership Act, 1932. This is one of the defects in the judgment of the trial court which I mention in passing before I deal with the questions of law which have arisen in this appeal.

( 2 ) ON appeal to the Additional Seni