( 1. ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the defendant No. 1, Sheo Bhagwan, from a judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for rendition of accounts.

( 2. ) THE facts of the case, in brief, were as follows- In the year 1943, there was an oral agreement between Gurumukhrai, Karta of a joint Hindu family trading under the name "baxiram Gurumukhrai" at Bilaspur, Radhakishan of Bilaspur and Premshanker of Nagpur, to start a business in partner ship styled "radhakishan Ramsahai" at Nagpur. Radhakishan was the uncle-in-law of Shoe Bhawan. In that partnership, Shoe Bhawan was employed as a munim. On 30th October, 1943, Shoe Bhawan was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. He was brought in as a partner in place of Prem shaker who went out. Under the terms of the partnership, Gurumukhrai and radhakishan were each to have a -/6/- annas share while Shoe Bhawan was to have the remaining -/4/- annas share. On 10th January, 1944, a deed of partnership was executed between Gurumukhrai, Radhakishan and She Bhawan. On 25th May, 1948, Gurumukhrai died and upon his death, the partnership was re-constituted, i. e. , the plaintiff, Vasudeolal, the succeeding karta of the joint Hindu family firm "baxiram Gurumukhrai" stepped in. The business of the firm continued under the name and style "radhakishan ramsahai" as before. In the re-constituted firm, each of the three partners were given - /5/4 annas share in the partnership business. There was no settlement of accounts of the partnership on the death of Gurumukhrai. The khata of Gurumukhrai, which was that of "baxiram Gurumukhrai" in the partnership books was the same Khata which continued when Vasudeolal came in. Admittedly, that khata of "baxiram Gurumukhrai" was never squared up. On 22nd December, 1948, there was a formal deed executed between vasudeolal, Radhakishan and Shoe Bhawan to evidence the partnership. That deed was drafted by a senior lawyer, Shri P. P. Deo, who later became a judge of the Nagpur High Court. The entire business of the partnership at Nagpur from the very inception, i. e. , w. e. f. 30th October, 1943, was under the management and control of sheo B hag wan and he was admittedly the managing partner thereof. During his period of management, he purchased a house at Nagpur worth Rs. 40,000/-, and subsequently mortgaged the same with his wife, Smt. Bhagwanibai. On 26th March, 1954, Sheo Bhagwan left the partnership business after giving a notice of dissolution of the firm.

( 3. ) ON 26th March, 1954, the plaintiff Vasudeolal, acting as the karta of the joint Hindu family carrying on business under the name and style "baxiram Gurumukhrai", instituted the present suit at Bilaspur, against the defendant No. 1 Sheo Bhogwan claiming rendition of account of the dissolved firm "radhakishan Ramsahai" w. e. f. 30th October, 1943 to 26th March, 1954. In that suit for accounts, he also impleaded Radhakishan and Smt. Bhagwani b a i as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, and added a relief of declaration to the effect that the house purchased by Sheo Bhagwan for Rs. 40,000/- was acquired from out of the assets belonging to the partnership and, therefore, constituted an asset of the firm, and consequently, the mortgage of the house effected by him in favour of his wife Smt. Bhagwanibai was not binding on the firm.

( 4. ) THE suit was mainly contested by the defendant No. 1, Sheo Bhagwan. He pleaded, inter alia, that the firm stood dissolved with the death of gurumukhrai on 25th May, 1948; that the claim was therefore, barred by limitation in respect of the profits prior to that date; that the partnership deed dated 2nd December, 1948, was executed at Nagpur and, therefore, the Bilaspur court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit as framed was bad for mis-joinder of parties.

( 5. ) THESE defences, however, failed and the learned Additional District judge has decreed the plaintiffs suit in its entirety. H