S.K. MAL LODHA, J —This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated October 21,1967 passed by the learned District Judge, Partabgarh which he maintained the dismissal of the suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.

2. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint dated July 17, 1963 that defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are sons of defendant No. 5, who died during the pendency of the suit and in his place, defendants Nos. 5/5 and 5/6 were impleaded as parties to the suit; that the defendants and the plaintiff jointly purchased truck No. RJY 1497 on May 23, 1962 for Rs. 6011/- from one Baldevsingh son of Govindsingh, resident of Kankroli and that it was agreed to ply this truck jointly (in partnership) and the following terms were orally agreed,—

1. That the aforesaid truck will be jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendants and 1/2 of its costs will be paid by the plaintiff and the other 1/2 by the defendants.

2. That as the defendants did not have sufficient amount, the plaintiff will invest more amount but the defendants will be liable to pay interest @ 2% per mensem to the plaintiff on that amount.

3. That the plaintiff and the defendants will share profits and loss in this business half and half.

4. That on behalf of the defendants, the business will be carried on in the name of defendant No. 1 Gheesukhan but all the defendants will be liable to receive and pay profits and loss.

5. That the parties will be free to put an end to the business, and after accounts, the party against whom any amount is found due, will pay the same to the other party.

The case of the plaintiff further is that towards the price of the truck, the plaintiff paid Rs. 4,000/- and the defendants paid Rs. 2,000/- and that as the plaintiff has paid Rs. 1000/- in excess of his share, the defendants are liable to pay interest to the plaintiff on this amount. After the purchase of the truck, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 went to the office of the Regional Transport Authority with the vendor Baldevsingh for transfer of the registration; that there, they came to know that the transfer cannot be effected in favour of two persons and, therefore the truck was transferred and registered in the name of Gheesukhan but the truck remained in partnership of the plaintiff and the defendants on the terms mentioned adove. In para 5 of the plaint, it was stated that whatever income was received from plying the truck upto February 10, 1963, was spent on it; that its account is with the plaintiff and that that account was shown to defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from time to time on behalf of all the defendants. It was also stated by the plaintiff from February 11, 1963, the aforesaid truck remained in possession of the defendants and they have not shown or supplied the account of income and expenditure; as it was not possible to ply the truck jointly, the plaintiff served a notice dated July 8, 1963 on the defendants for winding up the partnership business. This notice was wrongly replied by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has stated that according to the account upto February 10, 1963, invested Rs. 6135/11/3 and defendants had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1658/4/- on the truck and that after February 10, 1963, the account is with the defendants and that the account of the partnership can only be settled when the defendants submit the account to him. In these circumstances, the plaintiff brought the suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts praying for the following reliefs,—

1. That a decree may be passed declaring the dissolution of the partnership from July 10, 1963 or from any other date which the Court may think proper.

2. That a preliminary decree may be passed for taking accounts between the parties regarding the truck and thereafter, a decree for the amount that may be found due to the plaintiff may also be passed,

3. That the truck in question may be taken in possession of the court or a receiver may be appointed who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document