TMI Blog1944 (12) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried on at Cutch, outside British India. Plaintiff 1 Tricumji Jivandas is described in the plaint as a firm. Plaintiff 2, Khimji Poonja Co. are a firm who have a charge on the share of plaintiff 1, in the lands and business, for the money advanced by them to the said plaintiff. This charge was declared by the Bombay High Court in suit No. 751 of 1924. Plaintiff 3 had been appointed receiver in connexion with that suit. These are the principal respondents in the appeal, and there is no dispute inter se before the Board. 3. One Tricumji Jivandas, a native of Cutch who died in or about 1890, carried on business in various places in his own name. After his death, the business was continued by seven of his eight sons, named in the sub-joined table and their descendants, by a succession of partnerships to which they gave his name, Tricumji Jivandas. In course of time some members died or retired and the firm was carried on by the other members of the family. Gopaldas Tricumji was the managing partner of the firm. The following table, and the dates mentioned below, taken from the printed case of the respondents, will be helpful in following the successive partnerships. IMAGES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 10,000 in 1924. Goa Petha died in March 1930, and from that time his sons, the appellants worked the colliery. The suit was instituted on 11th December 1931. As stated already, it was for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. The plaintiffs (respondents) stated that the accounts of the partnership were adjusted only up to 1918, since which time they said there was no formal adjustment though Tricumji Jivandas received profits now and again up to 1924. 7. The main defences in the case were, that there was no partnership as alleged by the respondents, that the suit was barred by limitation and that it was not maintainable in law. The Subordinate Judge overruled the above pleas and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that in the partnership business carried on in the style of G.P.C. Co. in the Khas Jinagora Colliery, the firm of Tricumji Jivandas had l annas share in the property and business, and it dissolved in March 1930, by the death of Goa Petha, and directing accounts to be rendered by the appellants from November 1918, and a sale of the partnership property in accordance with Order 20, Rule 15 and Form No. 21 of Appendix D of Sch. (I), C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised here. Their Lordships are also of opinion that having regard to the nature of the partnership which went on as a living concern continuously since the time it was started, that separation or death of some members of the firm, others-their sons or grandsons-taking their place, cannot amount to dissolution, as Goa Petha presumably agreed to treat as partners the remaining members of the firm or such members as were added to it from time to time. As their Lordships are definitely of opinion that the cause of action for the suit arose only on the death of Goa Petha they do not think it is necessary to refer to the other aspects in which the question of limitation was placed before them, though they have considered them. 8. A subsidiary question argued by Mr. Rewcastle was, that the decree should be varied and that it should be brought into line with the form of the decree suggested in Syers v. Syres (1876) 1 A.C. 174, to the effect that having regard to the interest which the firm of Tricumji Jivandas had in the business, which was very small, sale of the entire business should not be ordered without giving in the first instance an option to the appellants to purchase that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also argued that Khemji died in 1930, that no one had been brought on record to represent his interests, and that Mohun Singh not having been made a partner cannot be represented by the firm. It is also to be noticed-so ran the argument-that Order 30, R. l is not applicable to the case as the business was carried on outside British India, and that a partnership firm cannot therefore sue in the firm's name. Finally counsel argued that Khemji's legal representative and Mohun Singh should be made parties to the suit in order that the appellants should obtain a complete discharge on the taking of accounts. 10. The arguments outlined above, appearing to their Lordships to be valid, they asked Sir Thomas Strangman, the learned Counsel for the respondents, if he objected to Khemji's son being joined as a party as legal representative of his father, and also in his personal capacity. He replied that he had no objection to his being so made a party. Later on a few days after the conclusion of the arguments, the learned Counsel asked leave to withdraw his assent, as he was apprehensive that if the accounts were re-opened, the appellants might urge that the share of l an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
