This appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 93 of 1950.

The facts are short and practically undisputed. The defendant along with others was running a cinema business as exhibitors and distributors. Subsequently the members who constituted this company got separated. Thereafter, the defendant and three others, who are not parties here, took over the assets and constituted themselves into a partnership at will and their deed of partnership is Exhibit B-1. The object of the partnership was to exploit the cinema house called Saraswathi Theatres and Lakshmi Talkies and two films, namely, Sivalinga Sakthi and Manimekhalai. The partnership capital was Rs. 1,11,460-10-0. Each partner had to contribute Rs. 27,865-2-6. This partnership at will after reciting the terms on which the business was to be run and including a provision for the management concludes that during the time this company is conducted, if any of the partners wishes to stop away or to take a return of the share amount all the partners shall abide by the decision of the majority.

This defendant apparently could not make up this amount of Rs. 27,865-2-6 and therefore assigned a share of that interest in the partnership and formed, what might be called, a sub-partnership with this plaintiff. This plaintiff was to contribute Rs. 5,573-0-6 in order to take a Fifth share of the defendant’s share in the main partnership at will referred to. This sub-partnership agreement is Exhibit A-6. In fact it is found that this plaintiff has attested the main partnership agreement. This document goes on to recite that this plaintiff was to contribute a fifth share of the amount to the defendant, that the plaintiff was to get profits and loss in the proportion in which he had contributed and which the defendant would get from this main partnership business, that in all these matters relating to cinema transaction the plaintiff was to conduct himself towards the defendant in the same manner in which the defendant was to conduct himself towards the three others in the main partnership business and that these two partners had together wholeheartedly effected this agreement in respect of the cinema partnership promising to abide by its terms.

But unfortunately, as it always happens in this temperamental cinema world, this plaintiff and the defendant were not able to get on and notice was given under Exhibit A-7 by the plaintiff to the defendant stating that he no longer desired to be a sub-partner with the defendant, and that he had terminated his relationship as a sub-partner and called upon him to return to him the sum of Rs. 5,575-0-6 contributed by him and render accounts.

I may for completeness of information point out that so far as this appeal is concerned we are only dealing with the rentals of cinema houses concerning which it would appear that a rental of Rs. 1,000 was assured and this defendant was to get Rs. 250. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff was being paid from time to time his share of the profits to the extent of one-fifth of the defendant’s share. In fact, certain amounts have been given credit to in the plaint itself and a decree has been given. I am merely mentioning this to show that the assessment of profits and loss between the plaintiff and the defendant is not such a complicated task as might appear at first sight involving taking of accounts of the main partnership business.

The defendant thereupon sent a reply notice (Exhibit A-8) in which he stated that the duration of the sub-partnership was by agreement to be identical with that of the main partnership and that the nature of circumstances of the sub-partnership agreement necessitated that the duration of the sub-partnership was to be identical with that of the main partnership.

The plaintiff has thereupon filed this suit for recovery from the defendant Rs. 6,201-0-6 or in the alternative to direct the defendant to render an account of the profits and l