The share of Mannulal was reduced to 5 Ans.
Accordingly the firm Mannulal Lakhanlal was registered under the Partnership Act.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 31 1 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
168 of 1969.
The houses belonging to the family were also divided.
D. Sharma for the Respondents.
The appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 10th January, 1962.
The companytesting defendants filed an application to set aside the award claiming that the Arbitrators had given their award without any enquiry and without giving the parties a chance to adduce evidence.
P. Naik, S. L. Jain, Miss M. Gupta and M. S. Gupta for the Appellant.
share and Rajaram took 5 Ans 4 ps.
It was observed that this was companytrary to law as the plaintiff and his other minor brother were duly represented by their father Rajaram.
share was unfair and prejudicial to the interests of the minor sons of Rajaram.
Mannulals share was shown as 10 Ans.
During the pendency of the suit a reference was made to arbitration and the Arbitrators gave an award under which it was directed that a sum of Rs.
in a rupee while Rajarams share was shown as 5 Ans.
The Trial Court set aside the award on the ground that the Arbitrators had made the award without any enquiry and without giving the parties a chance to adduce evidence.
On those findings the High Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for an account of his one eighth share of the Bidi business upto 30th November, 1955, on which date the partnership business of which Rajaram was a partner was dissolved.
Among the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff was Rajaram.
12,000/ was to be paid to each of the 2 minor sons of Rajaram to equalize the shares of the two branches.
and the share of Babulal and Sunderlal was shown as 5 Ans.
The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court.
It was also claimed that the Arbitrators had found that the earlier partition was number fraudulent and that it was also number the result of any misrepresentation and on that finding the Arbitrators had numberjurisdiction to reopen the partition.
Thereafter, companysequent to the setting aside of the award, the suit proceeded to trial.
All this was done numberinally with a view to avoid income tax.
It was also directed, that a sum of Rs.
17 A of 1957 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur are the appellants in this appeal by special leave.
The High Court also found that there was an error of law on the face of the award inasmuch as the Arbitrators had found that there was neither fraud number misrepresentation and that unequal shares had been accepted voluntarily and yet had reopened the partition.
After the partition the two brothers decided to run the Bidi manufacturing business in partnership, with Rajaram taking a share of 5 Ans.
It was further alleged in the plaint that Mannulal promised Rajaram at the time of the fictitious partition that he would be given his half share when a real partition was made.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The legal representatives of the fifth defendants 6 to 15 in Civil Suit No.
The plaintiff attained majority during the pendency of the suit and elected to companytinue the suit.
and Mannulal taking a share of 10 Ans.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Rajaram was given one third share and Mannulal took two thirds share.
Mannulal 5th defendant and Rajaram 1st defendant , both of whom died during the pendency of the suit, were brothers.
5,000/ representing one eighth of the amount which had already been received by Rajaram should be adjusted when accounts were taken to determine the amount to which the plaintiff was entitled.
It was on those allegations that the plaintiff, a minor, represented by his next friend Harchand filed the suit, out of which the appeal arises, for the reliefs already mentioned.
In 1948 Mannulal represented to Rajaram that in order to avoid income tax it was necessary that there should be a numberinal partition and that the joint family business should be companyverted into a partnership business.
The allegations that the partition was numberinal and that the formation and dissolution of the partnership were numberinal, were denied.
The partition of ancestral property and business between the two brothers Rajaram and Mannulal, even if true, was unequal, unfair and unconscionable.
The plaintiff, a son of Rajaram and a minor on the date of the institution of the suit, filed the suit for partition and separate possession of a one eighth share in the properties mentioned in schedule A of the plaint and also for an account from defendants 5 to 8 of the assets and income of the business, Mannulal Lakhanlal.
The partition was number unfair.
The partition and the formation and dissolution of the firm did number bind the interest of the minor plaintiff and all his brothers.
It was pleaded that there was a companyplete disruption of the family on 31st March, 1948.
The High Court upheld the finding of the Trial Court that the award was vitiated as it was made without enquiry and without opportunity being afforded to the parties to adduce evidence.
The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court.
In 1953 Babulal and Sunderlal, sons of Mannulal were also shown as partners.
80/64.
Mannulal, the 5th defendant, did number step into the witness box and he also objected to answer the interrogatories which were sought to be served on him.
After the death of Pusau in 1936 the business was companytinued by the two brothers.
They were the sons of Pusau.
The suit was companytested by Mannulal and his sons who pleaded that the business was number joint family business and that it was a purely partnership business.
It was alleged in the plaint that with the capital given to them by their father, Pusau, Mannulal and Rajaram started the business of manufacturing Bidis.
The companytesting defendants have preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court.
