JUDGMENT : Tudball, J. The lower court has entirely misunderstood the first issue remanded, That issue was ‘When did the partnership come to an end?’ The court below understood the issue to be ‘Whether the partnership came to an end or not,’ and came to a finding that it never came to an end. The facts are that the parties entered into a partnership for a fixed term of one year and they took certain land from the Railway Company to enable them to cut grass. At the end of the year the partnership came to an end. The issue was referred because it was not clear on what date it ended. 2. On the second issue It has held that no settlement of accounts has ever taken place. On the third issue there is no finding. However it is unnecessary to remand the case again. It is an admitted fact that the Railway Company obtained a decree against all the parties and recovered the amount from the present applicant, who brought a suit for contribution against the opposite party. A suit for settlement of accounts between the parties is now barred. The court below has held that the suit cannot lie in its present form, but all that the plaintiff can do is to bring a suit for accounts (which is entirely barred) so that the plaintiff, according to the court below, can obtain no relief. The ruling quoted by the court below in 9 B.H.C. Rep. has no bearing whatsoever on the case. The present case is on all fours with that of Sadhu Narayana Aiyangar v. Ramaswami Aiyangar, [1908] I.L.R., 12 Mad., 203, in which reference is also made to the ruling in I.L.R., 28 Mad., 344. Referring to the ruling in I.L.R., 28 Mad., the judgment runs as follows:— “A representative of a deceased partner was allowed to sue for a share of assets collected after dissolution by a surviving partner, though a suit for a general account was barred by limitation. The fact that neither partner has thought fit in proper time to secure a settlement of accounts does not, it is there pointed out, afford a reason why one partner should be enabled to secure an advantage over the other. The fact that neither partner has thought fit in proper time to secure a settlement of accounts does not, it is there pointed out, afford a reason why one partner should be enabled to secure an advantage over the other. Justice is done if the defendant is allowed to show that on a settlement of accounts he would not be liable.” The learned Judges go on to say, “the suit is therefore good as a suit for contribution, but the first defendant must be allowed to show, if he can, that on a settlement of accounts the amount payable by him as contribution is wiped out or reduced.” The principle underlying this ruling applies with all its force to the present case and I have not the slightest hesitation in holding that the suit, in its present form, does lie and is cognizable by the Small Cause Court. I may point out that after the decision of the court below the plaintiff went to the Munsif and there he was met with the plea that the Munsif had no jurisdiction. The court upheld the plea and the appellate court also upheld it; so that it has clearly been decided between the parties that the suit would not lie in the ordinary Civil Court, but will lie in the Small Cause Court. In my opinion, that decision is correct and as the court below has wrongly declined to exercise jurisdiction, I allow the application, set aside the decree of the court below and direct that court to readmit the suit on its original number and decide it on the merits. The applicant will have the costs of this application in any event.