A retiring partner is entitled to his due share of profits as provided for in the partnership agreement or interest at 6% from the date of suit till the final settlement of accounts as per the final decree to be passed in the suit.

1. The only point for determination in this appeal by the plaintiff is as to whether a retiring partner of a firm is entitled to share the profits of the firm until the date of final settlement of accounts or whether his claim for profits should be restricted to the period up to the date of suit for dissolution of the firm and settlement of accounts.

2. The short facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 entered into a partnership agreement Ext. Al on 21-6-1978 to conduct a business under the firm name "Santhosh Fisheries". The business consisted of the construction of a fishing boat and its operation for deep sea fishing. As per Ext. Al partnership deed the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the partners of the firm "Santhosh Fisheries". The first defendant is the Managing Partner entitled to a special remuneration of Rs. 300/- per month. Defendants 1 to 3 had obtained, a loan of Rs. 92,000/ from the 4th defendant the Kerala Financial Corporation and the said amount is to be their investment in the partnership. The plaintiff is to contribute Rs. 30,000/- as his share of investment. The profits of the

firm are to be divided into four shares, one share is to be given to the plaintiff and after payment of the instalments due to the 4th defendant, the balance is to be divided equally among defendants 1 to 3. The accounts of the firm are to be maintained by the first defendant and the partners have a right of inspection of the same. In case defendants 1 to 3 default in repaying the loan advanced by the 4th defendant in accordance with the terms of the agreement between them, the plaintiff is authorised to pay the loan, take over the boat, and run the business as a proprietary concern. The instalments paid by defendants 1 to 3 are in that event to be repaid by the plaintiff within two years after the takeover". If any partner wants to retire from the partnership, his share is to be ascertained and paid over to him. On the death of any of the partners, it is open to his legal representative to continue as a partner of the firm or retire from the partnership. If any additional investment is found necessary, the first defendant is authorised to make such investment and adjust the same towards the profits due to the partners. If the business entails in loss or otherwise found necessary to stop the business, the boat is to be sold and its proceeds divided among the partners equally.

3. The firm built a mechanised boat by name "Santhosh" and started the business of deep sea fishing. Soon, there were differences of opinion among the partners. The plaintiff by Ext. A2 notice addressed to defendants 1 to 3 demanded dissolution of the firm and settlement of accounts. He expressed his willingness to repay the loan due to the 4th defendant and take over the business as his proprietory concern. Defendants 1 to 3 did not accede to the demand under Ext. A2. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the present suit for dissolution of the firm and for settlement of accounts.

4. The defendants resisted the suit denying the plaint allegations and contending that the plaintiff has neither a right to demand the dissolution of the firm nor has he any right to take over the business of the firm as a proprietary concern on payment of the balance due on the loan advanced by the 4th defendant to defendants 1 to 3. They also contended that additional amounts had been invested in the partnership business, the instalments due to the 4th defendant are being paid regularly and the share of profits due to the plaintiff had been adjusted towards the additional investments in terms of the provision in that behalf in the partnership deed Ex. Al.

5. The court below found that the plaintiff has no right to take over the business as a proprietory concern so long as defendants 1 to 3 had been paying the instalments due to the 4th defendant regularly, there was no default in payment of such instalments and