SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(All) 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sapru and Agarwala, JJ.
SUGHRA - Appellant
Versus
BABU - Respondents
Second Appeal 877 Of 1947
Decided On : 09/26/1951

Advocates Appeared:
P.N.BAKSHI, S.N.SAHAI, SHAMBHU PRASAD

Headnote:

PARTNERSHIP - DISSOLUTION - DEATH OF PARTNER - NEW PARTNERSHIP - ACCOUNTING - COMMISSION CHARGED - INCOME-TAX FRAUD - [SECTION 42, PARTNERSHIP ACT]

Fact of the Case:

Abdul Shakoor and Wali Mohammad were partners in a commission agency business. After Abdul Shakoor's death, Wali Mohammad continued the business with the major heirs of Abdul Shakoor, while the minor heirs were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. After Wali Mohammad's death, his son Babu took his place in the partnership. The plaintiffs, Abdul Shakoor's heirs, filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The defendant, Babu, claimed that accounts be taken from the plaintiffs from the commencement of the partnership and a decree be passed in his favor for the amount found due to him.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the partnership was dissolved upon the death of Abdul Shakoor, but a new partnership was created between the surviving partners and the heirs of the deceased partner. The court also held that the heirs of Abdul Shakoor were liable for the assets of the old firm in the hands of Abdul Shakoor, but their liability was restricted to the assets of Abdul Shakoor in their hands. The court further held that accounting could be taken on the basis of the commission being Rs. 2-8-0 per score of goats, as charged by Abdul Shakoor, and not Rs. 1-3-0 as entered in the account books.

Issues: 1. Whether the partnership was dissolved upon the death of Abdul Shakoor? 2. Whether the heirs of Abdul Shakoor were liable for the assets of the old firm in the hands of Abdul Shakoor? 3. Whether accounting could be taken on the basis of the commission being Rs. 2-8-0 per score of goats or must be restricted to Rs. 1-3-0 as entered in the account books?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A partnership is dissolved upon the death of a partner, unless there is a contract to the contrary between the partners. 2. The heirs of a deceased partner are not automatically partners in the new partnership, but they may come in place of the deceased partner and become partners upon the old terms. 3. The liability of the heirs for the assets of the old firm in the hands of the deceased partner is restricted to the assets of the deceased partner in their hands. 4. Accounting can be taken on the basis of the commission actually charged, even if it was not entered in the account books.

Final Decision: The court modified the decree of the lower courts. The decree for the amount found due by the lower court was to stand in favor of the defendants against the assets of Abdul Shakoor in the hands of the plaintiffs-appellants. A decree for the same sum against plaintiffs-appellants, Ghulam Sabir, Ghulam Ghaus, and Ghulam Shakir was to be confined to the assets of the firm Abdul Shakoor Wali Mohammad, if any, in their hands. In other respects, the decree of the courts below was to stand.

AGARWALA, J.


( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal arising out of a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. Abdul Shakoor, father of the plaintiffs, and Wali Mohammad, father of the defendant, used to carry on the business of commission agency as partners under the name and style of abdul Shakoor Wali Mohammad. They used to charge commission on the sale of goats. The share of each partner was half and half. Abdul Shakoor died in 1938 and, after his death, Wali mohammad carried on the partnership business in partnership with the major plaintiffs while the minor plaintiffs were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The share of Wali Mohammad and the plaintiffs was also half and half. Wali Mohammad died in 1940 and his place was taken by his son, Babu, defendant-respondent, in the partnership whose business was carried on as before. The plaintiffs case was that the partnership account books remained in possession of wali Mohammad and after his death in the possession of his son, Babu, that both of them used to keep the accounts and, that therefore, the defendant is liable to render accounts to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for rendition of accounts but did not specify the period for which the accounts were to be rendered. They also prayed for dissolution of the partnership.

( 2 ) THE defendant-respondent admitted the partnership as alleged by the plaintiffs, but he alleged that Abdul Shakoor used to keep the accounts and cash, that he did not pay anything to Wali mohammad and misappropriated the assets of the partnership, that no accounting was ever done since the inception of the partnership, that Abdul Shakoor used to charge commission at the rate of Rs. 2-8-0 per score of goats from his customers but in the account books entered it at the rate of 12 annas per score of goats. The defendant, therefore, claimed that accounts be taken from the plaintiffs from the commencement of the partnership and a decree may be passed in his favour for the amount which may be found due to him.

( 3 ) IN the trial Court the parties agreed that a preliminary decree he passed and a Commissioner be appointed to find out the money due to from (1) the commencement of the partnership upto 25th June 1938, the date of Abdul Shakoors death and (2) from 25th June 1938, upto the date of accounting. They further agreed that after the receipt of the Commissioners report the Court should decide as to which party was liable for the amount and for what period. A preliminary decree was passed in accordance with this agreement. The Commissioner submitted his report and found that Abdul Shakoor kept the accounts and the cash upto the time of his death, that he charged commission at the rate of Rs. 20-8-0 per score of goats and entered the same at the rate of Rs. 1-3-0 in the books, that after Abdul Shakoors death, Wali Mohammad and then Babu used to keep the accounts, that upon examination of the account books a sum of Rs. 13,232-12-3 was due from the plaintiffs to the defendant up to the death of Abdul Shakoor and that thereafter a sum of Rs. 875-6-4 was due from the defendant to the plaintiffs. The learned Munsif, after scrutinising the accounts passed a decree in favour of the defendant for rs. 11,700 to be recovered from the assets of Abdul Shakoor in the hands of the plaintiffs. The defendant was ordered to pay court fee on this amount which he did. Against this decree the plaintiffs appealed and the defendant filed cross-objections The appeal and the cross-objections, were dismissed. The plaintiffs have now come up in second appeal to this Court.


( 4 ) TWO points have been urged before us, firstly, that on the death of Abdul Shakoor there was a dissolution of the partnership and that since the suit was filed more than three years after the death of Abdul Shakoor, no accounting of the time before his death could be gone into and secondly, that in order to cheat the Income-tax Department the partners entered in their ac


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top