The High Court companypletely ignored the companyduct of Lallu Singh in the suit filed by Gattu Lal against Jagdeo Singh.
The partnership was to last for five years which term companyld be extended by mutual companysent.
The partnership was for a period of five years from June 28, 1943 and the agreement of partnership was oral.
About three months after the formation of the partnership, Jugdeo Singh assumed exclusive companytrol of the forest and altogether excluded Gattu Lal from any benefit in the partnership.
He was granted permission to so cross examine Lallu Singh.
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 companyl and that each of them had an eight annas share therein.
Thereafter on July 13, 1944, Gattu Lal entered into what is described by the companyrts below as sub partnership with Thakur Gulab Singh, the son of Lallu Singh, aged about 19 or 20 years at that time.
Despite the attitude taken by Lallu Singh in the suit filled by Gattu Lal against Jagdeo Singh in which Gattu Lal ultimately obtained a decree for Rs.
By the deed of sub partnership, Gulab Singh was given a half share in the eight annas share of Gattu Lal.
A preliminary decree was passed on July 7, 1952.
Gulab Singh was to supply the funds whenever Gattu Lal so demanded.
In fact, apart from the sum of Rs.
Obviously if there was numberpartnership between Jagdeo Singh and Gattu Lal the knowledge of the existence of which was denied by Lallu Singh , there companyld be numberquestion of sub partnership between Gattu Lal and Lallu Singhs son, Gulab Singh.
It is number necessary for us to discuss the various questions which were canvassed before the trial companyrt and the High Court.
Ultimately Gattu Lal was forced to file a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against Jagdeo Singh.
The suit was resisted on various grounds and was ultimately dismissed by the trial companyrt.
On appeal by Jagdeo Singh and further second appeal by him to the High Court, the amount was reduced to Rs.
251/ said to have been paid to Gattu Lal at the time of the passing of the chhithi, it is number claimed by Gulab Singh that any other or further amount was ever paid by Gulab Singh or Lallu Singh to Gattu Lal.
On appeal by the respondent, the High Court decreed the suit on the basis of the alleged sub partnership.
251/ for meeting the expenses.
two lakhs and eighty six thousand and odd Lallu Singhs 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.
If thereafter possession of the forest was obtained then Gulab Singh and Gattu Lal were to carry on the partnership business each having a half share in the profits and losses.
The plaintiff Gattu Lal was, therefore, forced to seek the permission of the companyrt to declare the witness hostile and to cross examine him.
If Jagdeo Singh persisted in his attitude, Gattu Lal would have to take legal action against him.
Gattu Lal was to be entitled to his share of the profits and losses from the dale of the sub partnership.
One of the grounds on which the suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt was that whatever rights Gulab Singh had under the deed of sub partnership, had been abandoned by him and therefore, he was number entitled to claim any share in the fruits of the decree obtained by Gattu Lall on the basis of the deed of sub partnership.
An appeal and second appeal by Jagdeo Singh were dismissed.
It was then recited in the deed of sub partnership that Jagdeo Singh was giving some trouble and that the partnership of Gattu Lal and Jagdeo Singh had number been reduced to writing and got registered.
if Gulab Singh refused or hesitated to supply the funds, Gattu Lal had the right to break the partnership.
Yet Gulab Singh has number the audacity to file the present suit to recover a share of the fruits of the decree obtained by Gattu Lal.
If Gattu Lal was to take legal action against Jagdeo Singh, Gulab Singh was to bear all expenses and after accounts were settled Gulab Singh and Gattu Lal were liable each for one half at the time of making the accounts of the partnership firm Gulab Singh Gattu Lal.
3,63,836/ was passed by the Trial Court in favour of Gattu Lal.
On the other hand, when Lallu Singh was called as a witness to depose on behalf of Gattu Lal in the suit filed by him against Jagdeo Singh, he turned hostile and denied all knowledge of any partnership between Gattu Lal and Jagdeo Singh.
A final decree for Rs.
2,86,078.62 P. and companyts.
Notwithstanding the so called sub partnership, numberhing further happened and Jagdeo Singh companytinued to work the forest and manufacture companyl all by himself, to the total exclusion of Gattu Lal.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. The appellant.
Gattu Lal entered into a partnership with Jagdeo Singh to work a forest to manufacture companyl, the forest having been taken on lease by Jagdeo Singh from Thakur Lallu Singh.
The Supreme Court refused to grant special leave against the judgment of the High Court which thus became final.
It is the admitted case of the parties that neither Lallu Singh number Gulab Singh companytributed even a pie towards the expenses of litigation.
