A suit for accounts and share of profits and assets of a dissolved firm is governed by Article 106 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of three years from the date of dissolution.

( 1 ) THIS and the connected First Appeals Nos. 364 and 379 of 1954 are defendants appeals aaginst a decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Bijnor.

( 2 ) THERE are six brothers, viz. Kundan Lal, Banarsi Das, Kanshi Ram, Muuna Lal, Devi Chand and Shiva Prasad. They were members of a joint Hindu family till 31-8-1936 and owned, inter alia, a sugar mill known as S. B. Sugar Mills situate at Bijnor. On the aforesaid date a separation took place in the family and the six brothers agreed to hold the said mill thenceforward as a partnership concern, each owning a one-sixth share therein. From 1941 to 1944 Kundan Lal was the resident manager of the mill.

( 3 ) ON 13-5-1944 Shiva Prusad instituted a suit (No. 105 of 1944) in the court of the Subordinate judge of Lahore against Kundan Lal and other brothers for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. On the same day he put in an application for appointment of a receiver.

( 4 ) ON 3-8-1944 the leraned Subordinate Judge appointed one Mr. P. G. Mahajan as a receiver of the said mill. An appeal preferred against that order was dismissed by the learned District Judge of Lahore on 14-11-1944. The matter was taken up in revision to the Lahore High Court. In that court the parties came to terms. It was agreed between them that the order appointing the receiver should be maintained but that Kanshi Ram, one of the brothers, should be appointed the receiver. The High Court passed an order to that effect on 5-4-1945.

( 5 ) ON 28-8-1946 a joint petition was presented by all the six brothers to the learned Subordinate judge praying that the receiver be directed to execute a lease of the mill to Banarsi Das. On the same dato the court passed an order as prayed. The lease was actually executed on 12-9-1946.

( 6 ) MEANWHILE, the District Magistrate of Bijnor, acting under the Defence of India Rules, had taken possession of the mill and had appointed Kundan Lal and his son, Puran Chand, as agents on behalf of Government to work the mill during the 1944-45 season. In the next year the government executed a lease in favour of Kundan Lal and his son, Puran Chand, and they remained in possession of the mill in 1945-46 season as lessees from Government.

( 7 ) ON the execution of the lease by Kanshi Ram to Banarsi Das delivery of possession was made by Kundan Lal and Puran Chancl to the Tahsildar as representative of the Government on 12-9-1946. On the same day the Tahsildar handed over possession to Kanshi Ram, the receiver, and, again, on the same day, Kanshi Ram handed over possession to Banarsi Das, the lessee.

( 8 ) PARTITION of India took place on 15-8-1947. As is wellknown, it was followed by great disturbances. The result was that the parties could not reach the Lahore court to prosecute the civil suit pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Lahore. The suit was dismissed for default on 11-10-1947, Neither party made any attempt to get it restored.

( 9 ) ON 8-11-1947 a suit. (No. 22 of 1947) was instituted by Shiva Prasad at Bijnor for a permanent injunction to restrain Banarsi Das from acting as a lessee and asking for the appointment of a receiver. This suit was also dismissed for default on 13-3-1948.

( 10 ) ON 7-10-1948 the suit which has given rise to these three appeals was instituted by Kundan lal. He impleaded his five brothers as defendants. In the plaint he alleged that the partnership had dissolved on 13-5-1944. Further, he maintained that the lease executed by the receiver in favour of Banarsi Das was illegal and void. According to him, the appointment of Kanshi Ram as a receiver came to an end with the dismissal of the suit on 11-10-1947. He was impleaded in the present suit as a partner and not as a receiver. The reliefs sought by Kundan Lal were as follows :

" (a) That it may be declared that the partnership of the Shiv Prasad Banarsi Das Sugar Mills, bijnor, between the parties was dissolved on 13-5-1944 and if in opinion of the court the partne