JUDGMENT 1. Three brothers, Tinkari, Nilmadhao and Ratnakar, carried on money-lending business in partnership. Tinkari died in Jaistha, 1336 B.S., leaving two pons Trivanga and Pashupati. Trivanga died on the 23rd Magh, 1336, leaving a widow Niroda Sundari Dasi. On the 21st June, 1937, Niroda Sundari raised the present suit against Nil Madhab, Ratnakar and Pashupati for accounts of the money-lending business carried on by them from 14th Pous, 1337. The Defendants contested the suit. Their defence, so far as it is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal, is that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Judge has overruled this defence and has decreed the suit. 2. Hence this appeal by the Defendants. 3. The contention on behalf of the Appellants is that the suit is barred under Art. 106 of the Indian Limitation Act. 4. The learned Judge in his judgment has said:- It is not disputed that after the death of Plain-tiff's busband, Trivanga, which took place in Magh, 1336, B.S., Plaintiff demanded an account of the money-lending business from the Defendants 1 and 2 in Pons, 1337, and that they furnished her with an account. It is also admitted in paragraph 18 of the written statement that an account of the money, lending business was taken in 1342 by the son-in-law of the Plaintiff. Nor was it denied at the time of the trial that the business was still being carried on. 5. It is therefore clear that the money-lending business which the three brothers carried on in partnership was continued even after the death of Tinkari. 6. There is a clear provision in the English law to meet an occasion like this. Sec. 42 of the Partnership Act of 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., Chap. 5. It is therefore clear that the money-lending business which the three brothers carried on in partnership was continued even after the death of Tinkari. 6. There is a clear provision in the English law to meet an occasion like this. Sec. 42 of the Partnership Act of 1890 (53 & 54 Vict., Chap. 39) lays down:- (1) Where any member of a firm has died or otherwise ceased to be a partner, and the surviving or continuing partners carry on the business of the firm with its capital or assets without any final settlement of accounts as between the firm and the outgoing partner or his estate, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the outgoing partner or his estate is entitled at the option of himself or his representatives to such share of the profits made since the dissolution as the Court may find to be attributable to the use of his share of the partnership assets, or to interest at the rate of five percent. per annum, on the amount of his share of the partnership assets. (2) Provided that where by the partnership contract an option is given to surviving or continuing partners to purchase the interest of a deceased or outgoing partner, and that option is duly exercised, the estate of the deceased partner, or the outgoing partner or his estate, as the case may be, is not en-titled to any further or other share of profits; but if any partner assuming to act in exercise of the option does not in all material respects comply with the terms thereof, he is liable to account under the foregoing provisions of this section. 7. The Indian Partnership Act (Act IX of 1932) has now practically incorporated this provision of the English Statute in its sec. 37. 8. The Indian Partnership Act, however, came into force only on the 1st day of October, 1932, and the Indian Contract Act which, before the Partnership Act of 1932 contained the provisions relating to partnership did not make any corresponding provision. There was, however, a provision in the Indian Trusts Act (Act II of 1882) in its sec. 37. 8. The Indian Partnership Act, however, came into force only on the 1st day of October, 1932, and the Indian Contract Act which, before the Partnership Act of 1932 contained the provisions relating to partnership did not make any corresponding provision. There was, however, a provision in the Indian Trusts Act (Act II of 1882) in its sec. 88, the relevant portion of which ran as follows: Where a...partner...or other person bound in fiduciary character to protect the interests of another person, by availing himself of his character, gains for himself any pecuniary advantage...he must hold for the benefit of such other person the advantage so gained. The section contained 8 statutory illustrations, the sixth of which ran as follows:- (f) A and B are partners. A dies. B instead of winding up the affairs of the partnership retains all the assets in the business. B must account to A's legal representative for the profit arising from A's share of the capital. 9. In this state of law, this High Court in Mohammad Kamil v. Haji Hedayatullah 33 C.L.J. 411 (1921), held that though the provision of the English Statute was not applicable in this country, the rule itself contained in sec. 42 of the English Partnership Act, 1890, was a rule that had been laid down in much earlier English decisions [Brown v. De Tastet (1831) Jacob 284, per Lord Eldon; Yates v. Finn L.R. 13 Ch. Div. 839 (1880), per Hall, V.C.] and was manifestly consistent with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, and as such was applicable here. This Court held that in the absence of other special circumstances affecting the rights of the deceased partner on the one hand and the surviving partner on the other, the representatives of the deceased partner are entitled to a share in the profits made out of the business since the death of the partner. It was also held that the profits may be regarded as accretions to the property which has yielded them and ought to belong to the owner of such property. 10. It was also held that the profits may be regarded as accretions to the property which has yielded them and ought to belong to the owner of such property. 10. This case went on appeal to the Judicial Committee and their Lordships of the Judicial Committee upheld this decision observing:- If a partnership business is continued after the termination of the partnership by the death of a partner, it becomes a partnership-at-will and the representatives of the deceased partner are entitled to have accounts taken of the partnership subsequent to his death until its final dissolution on the footing that they have the same share as the deceased partner had in the business." [Haji Hedayatulla v. Mohammad Kamil 29 C.W.N. 161 (P.C.) (1923)] 11. As has already been pointed out this view has now received the legislative sanction by the fact that it has now been expressly adopted as the law in India (sec. 37 of the Partnership Act, 1932). 12. The right thus given to the legal representative of a deceased partner is not a right to a share of the profits of a dissolved partnership within the meaning of Art. 106 of the Limitation Act, but is a right accruing to him by the subsequent dealing with the assets belonging to the deceased partner. 13. There cannot be any doubt therefore that the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/6 th share of the assets of the business and of the profits which the Defendants have made from the business since Pous, 1337 B.S. This suit therefore is not hit by Art. 106 of the Indian Limitation Act. 14. We accordingly affirm the decree of the trial Judge and dismiss this appeal with costs--hearing fee being assessed at three gold mohurs. The cross-objections are not pressed and are dismissed without costs.