These two second appeals arise out of the same partnership action and present a common case against the decision of the Courts below. The principal grievance relates to the trade-mark and goodwill of the partnership business, which it is submitted, are very substantial assets. While the trial Court held that the good will and trade mark of the partnership are assets of the partnership shared by the deceased partner under whom the appellants claim and the other partner the sixth defendant in the case who deed pending the appeal, the appellate Court set asie this finding and declared the sixth defendant to be solely entitled to the trade mark and goodwill of the partnership. Closely connected with the right to the goodwill and trade mark of the firm is the question whether the partnership is a partnership at will, and if there is a dissolution of (he partnership what is the date of the dissolution.

First, to set down briefly certain essential facts: One Abdul Rasheed and the sixth defendant in the suit, Abdul Gaffar Saheb carried on in partnership a fairly successful business in the manufacture and sale of beedies under the name and style of R. Gaffar & Company. The partnership, as an auxiliary venture, had a press under the name and style of Hindustan Press. The partnership between the two is evidenced by the partnership deed Exhibit B-1, dated 14th November, 1940. As the business flourished and the two partners found it difficult to manage the business by themselves, Basheer Ahmed, the fifth defendant in the suit and a son of Abdul Rasheed above referred to, was taken into the business as a partner, and a fresh partnership deed was entered into on 1st April, 1957. That deed is Exhibit B-2 in the case. Abdul Rasheed died on 28th June, 1958. The suit, out of which these second appeals arise, was filed on 1st October, 1958, originally as an action for taking of accounts of a dissolved firm, on the basis that the firm stood dissolved on the death of Abdul Rasheed. The first plaintiff in the suit is one of the widows of the deceased Abdul Rasheed. The second and third plaintiffs in the suit are his sons. Both were minors at the time of the institution of the suit. Pending the suit, on 27th July, 1959 the second plaintiff attained majority and he was declared a major in 1960. The first defendant is another widow of the deceased Abdul Rasheed. Besides the fifth defendant who had been taken into the partnership, the deceased had two other sons by her, the second and third defendants in the suit. They are a!l minors. The fourth defendant is a minor daughter of the deceased. The sixth defendant in the suit is the other partner. He died pending the appeal which he preferred to the lower appellate Court, and his widow and children were brought on record as his legal representatives by the lower appellate Court on 23rd August, 1962. The plaintiffs were originally unaware of the subsequent partnership agreement. Exhibit B-2 and, on its being set up in defence, the plaint was amended in terms of the latter partnership agreement. The plaintiffs gave up the case of dissolution of the partnership by the death of Abdul Rasheed and on the basis of the second partnership deed, they prayed for taking of accounts of the partnership business, ascertaining the amounts due to each of the plaintiffs, declaring that the second plaintiff is a partner and the third plaintiff is entitled to be admitted to the benefits of the partnership and for directions to implement the rights of the parties in terms of the latter partnership agreement and also for other incidental reliefs.

The plaintiffs contended that there was no dissolution of the firm on the death of Abdul Rasheed and prayed for reliefs on the basis that the partnership continued notwithstanding the death of one of the partners. It is the case of the sixth defendant also that there was no dissolution of the partnership with the death of Rasheed and,, the fifth defendant, to the extent his int