A partner who retires from a partnership is entitled to claim a share in the profits or to claim 6 per cent interest on the capital advanced by him unless the other partners settle the accounts and clear off all the dues that might be due to him.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the first defendant against the preliminary decree, dated 3112-1959, for dissolution of an unregistered partnership and accounts passed by shri B. R. L. Shivastava, First Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit no. S-B of 1959.

( 2 ) THE Central India Bidi Works Begumganj, a bidi manufacturing business, was being run by the appellant and the second respondent, Laxmichand, who is related to him as a family business, till the year 1946. On 14-8-1946, the plaintiff-respondent 1, Mathuraprasad was introduced as a partner and a deed of partnership of the same date (Ex- P-1) was executed between the three partners. However, the partnership was not registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The business was carried on in partnership till Diwali of the year 1954 according to the appellant.

( 3 ) THE first respondent's allegation in the plaint was that the partnership was never dissolved; and, as such, he filed a suit on 10-5-1928 for dissolution of the unregistered partnership and for taking accounts thereof. ( 4 ) THE defence of the appellant was that the partnership was dissolved on account of the retirement of the second respondent, Laxmichand from the Diwali of the year 1953, as also the retirement of the plaintiff with effect from the Diwali of the year 1954. Thereafter, the appellant carried on the business exclusively for himself. The appellant in his written statement alleged that after the retirement of laxmichand in Diwali of the year 1953, there was an agreement between the appellant and the first respondent agreeing to dissolve the firm with effect from diwali of the year 1954. It was further stated that the notice given by the first respondent on 4-1-1955 (Ex. P-5) did not dissolve the partnership, nor was the partnership dissolved as per Clause 11 of the agreement of partnership, dated 148-1946 (Ex. P-l ).

( 5 ) FURTHER, it was the defence of the appellant that there were no profits till Diwali 1954. On the other hand, the partnership was running in loss and there were liabilities against the partnership firm. It was on account of this that the plaintiff decided to sever his connections with the firm and in pursuance of that he retired from the partnership and did nothing, so as to continue the partnership. As such, the appellant alone was entitled to appropriate the profits earned after Diwali of the year 1954. It was also contended that the partnership having ceased to exist with effect from 26-10-1954 (Diwali), the suit filed on 10-5-1958 was barred by time under Article 106 of the Indian Limitation Act. The defence of the second respondent in addition was that he was never a partner of the firm, inasmuch as, the deed was not signed by him, but by his brother. Sobhagmal, who had no authority to sign the deed on his behalf. As such, it was alleged that it was sobhagmal, who was in fact, a partner and who should have been impleaded in the suit.

( 6 ) AN application was made by the plaintiff for impleading Sobhagmal as a party to the suit. But, it was rejected by the trial Judge, holding that Sobhagmal was not a partner; and, as such, not a necessary party to the suit.

( 7 ) THE trial Judge held that the partnership was not dissolved in Diwali 1954; and as such, the plaintiff was entitled to an account till the date of passing the decree for dissolution. The suit was held to be within time; and, accordingly, a preliminary decree was passed, declaring the appellant and the first respondent's shares to be-/6/- each and that of the second respondent to be -/4/ -. An account of the partnership assets and liabilities was directed to be taken from the inception of the partnership to the date of passing of the decree, namely, 31-12-1959.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant, inviting attention to the pleas raised by the parties urged that although the appellant might have failed to prove that the firm was dissolved by act of the parties, the plaintiff would not be entitl