JUDGMENT

Banerji, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for dissolution of partner-snip and rendition of accounts.

2. The plaintiff came into Court on the allegation that his father Hoti Lal and the defendant Beni Ram entered into a partnership to carry on a confectionery business in Cawnpore and opened a shop styled " Beni Ram Hoti Lal " about the year 1900. The defendant, he alleged, was taken by Hoti Lal as a partner in consideration of his services and invested no capital and that they were partners in equal shaves. Hoti Lal died in 1920 but the firm continued to work as before in partnership of the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff finding that a considerable sum was due to him which the defendant would not pay and the defendant refusing to render accounts, seeks dissolution of partnership and a decree for the sum that may be due upon accounting.

3. The defendant in his written statement controverted the facts as to the constitution of the partnership and stated that. Hoti Lal invested no funds in it and was given a four annas share which was subsequently increased to a 2/5ths share in consideration of his services, that after the death of Hoti Lal in 1920 an account was settled of the partnership and no partnership was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant.

4. Various issues were raised in the Court below. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the partnership between Hoti Lal and the defendant was dissolved on the death of the father of the plaintiff, and that the share of Hoti Lal was one-half. He directed account to be taken for one year previous to the death of Hoti Lal and if any money was found due to the plaintiff he was entitled to that amount as if it were a loan, in accordance with Section 241, Contract Act, with interest at six per cent.

5. The plaintiff has challenged the findings of the Court below and the defendant has filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 against the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiff.

6. It is contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that under the provisions of Section 247, Contract Act, a person could be admitted to the benefits of a partnership and that the plaintiff had been admitted to the benefit of the partnership business known as Beni Ram Hoti Lal after the death of Hoti Lal, when the partnership was dissolved by the death of Hoti Lal. We are of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff who was a minor at the date of the death of his father, was not admitted as a partner, nor could he under the provisions of Section 247, be admitted to the benefit of the partnership as no partnership existed after the death of Hoti Lal. The plaintiff being a minor could not enter into a contract with Beni Ram to form partnership. There being no partnership in existence the provisions of Section 247, Contract Act cannot apply to a case like the present.

7. We have been taken through the whole of the evidence in the case by the learned advocates for the parties. It is unnecessary to discuss that evidence as we have come to the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge are correct. We hold that the evidence in the case does not prove that there was any complete accounting between the parties to the suit after the death of Hoti Lal, nor was there a fresh agreement between the parties to continue the partnership. We further hold that on the evidence the plaintiff is entitled to call for accounts for the period of one year before his father's death in respect of which no proper accounting had been done between the plaintiff's father Hoti Lal and Beni Ram. There only remains the question whether the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge directing the accounting for one year only should be affirmed.

8. The learned advocate for the plaintiff contends that the accounting should not be confined to one year b