TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he partnership. Thereafter on July 13, 1944, Gattu Lal entered into what is described by the courts below as 'sub-partnership' with Thakur Gulab Singh, the son of Lallu Singh, aged about 19 or 20 years at that time. It is not disputed and indeed it cannot possibly be disputed that the arrangement was really with Thakur Lallu Singh, the father, but in the name of Thakur Gulab Singh, the son. This is obvious from a reading of the evidence of Gulab Singh himself. The deed of sub-partnership recited the circumstance that Gattu Lal had entered into a partnership with Jagdeo Singh for working the Hathibar forest to manufacture coal and that each of them had an eight annas share therein. By the deed of sub-partnership, Gulab Singh was give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file a suit, Gulab Singh was to bear all the expenses which might have to be incurred. Thereafter the amount was to be adjusted half and half in the accounts. Notwithstanding the so-called sub-partnership, nothing further happened and Jagdeo Singh continued to work the forest and manufacture coal all by himself, to the total exclusion of Gattu Lal. Ultimately Gattu Lal was forced to file a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against Jagdeo Singh. A preliminary decree was passed on July 7, 1952. An appeal and second appeal by Jagdeo Singh were dismissed. A final decree for ₹ 3,63,836/- was passed by the Trial Court in favour of Gattu Lal. On appeal by Jagdeo Singh and further second appeal by him to the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained a decree for Rs. two lakhs and eighty six thousand and odd Lallu Singh's son, Gulab Singh unabashedly and unashamedly filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for a share of the amount which had been decreed in favour of Gattu Lal. The suit was resisted on various grounds and was ultimately dismissed by the trial court. On appeal by the respondent, the High Court decreed the suit on the basis of the alleged sub-partnership. It is not necessary for us to discuss the various questions which were canvassed before the trial court and the ; High Court. One of the grounds on which the suit was dismissed by the trial court was that whatever rights Gulab Singh had under the deed of sub-partnership, had been abandoned by him a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f time, but also the existence of circumstances which render it unjust to give relief to the plaintiff; and unless reasonable vigilance is shown in the prosecution of a claim to equitable relief, the Court, acting on the maxim vigilanti-bus non dormientibus subveniunt leges, will decline to interfere. The doctrine of laches is of great importance where persons have agreed to become partners, and one of them has unfairly left the other to do all the work, and then, there being a profit, comes forward and claims a share of it. In such cases as these, the plaintiff's conduct lays him open to the remark that nothing would have been heard of him had the joint adventure ended in loss instead of gain; and a court will not aid those who can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
