JUDGMENT : 1. This is a defendant's appeal from a preliminary decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Indore in a suit by the respondent Chhaganlal for rendition of accounts of a dissolved partnership. It is common ground that Chhaganlal was, under the terms of the partnership which commenced business on 20th October 1943, to supply the capital and take a five annas share in the rupee in the business. The defendant Hiralal was to take another five annas while a six annas share was given to Amolakchand who retired from the partnership on 30th July 1946. On accounts being taken at this stage a sum of Rs.5, 100 was found due from Amolakchand who executed a bond Ex.P-1, for the same in favour of the surviving partners. The plaintiff's case is that after the retirement of Amolakchand, he and the defendant continued the partnership in equal shares until the Diwali of samvat 2003 when Hiralal ceased working and the partnership came to an end. He claimed interest on the capital advanced by him at 7½ per cent. per annum. The defendant, while admitting the partnership and its initial terms, contended that the plaintiff took up the six annas share of Arnolakchand on his retirement and the bond, Ex.P-1, was in fact to be understood as being in favour of the plaintiff and consequently the plaintiff was liable to the partnership for Rs.5,100 under the bond. He pleaded that the partnership came to an end on Bhadav Sudi 11 samvat 2003, and set up a compromise of the claim by the plaintiff for Rs.1,700. 2. The learned District Judge, held that interest was due to the plaintiff at 6 per cent, and not 7½% as claimed by him; that the plaintiff was not liable for the amount of Rs.5, 100; that the plaintiff and defendant had an equal share in the partnership after the retirement of Amolakchand; that the partnership ended on Bhadav Sudi 11-2003; and that the plea regarding the compromise was baseless. On a plea for instalments, the learned Judge rightly held that this was a matter to be considered when making the final decree. A preliminary decree for taking accounts was, therefore, passed and the defendant held liable for costs. 3. Before me the contention regarding the plaintiff's liability in consequence of Ex. On a plea for instalments, the learned Judge rightly held that this was a matter to be considered when making the final decree. A preliminary decree for taking accounts was, therefore, passed and the defendant held liable for costs. 3. Before me the contention regarding the plaintiff's liability in consequence of Ex. P-1 is not pressed and the only questions for determination are: (1) What is the share of the plaintiff and defendant in the partnership after the retirement of Amolakehand? (2) Was the claim of the plaintiff for his share fixed at Rs.1, 700 by a compromise? (3) Should the costs be made payable by the defendant? 4. It is contended that in absence of a contract to the contrary the shares of the plaintiff and defendant must be eight annas each in the rupee. On the question of contract to the contrary we have the oath of the plaintiff against the oath of the defendant. The learned Judge below has accepted the word of the plaintiff and apart from the weight the finding is entitled to by reason of the opportunity the learned Judge had of observing the deponent first hand, the circumstances give good ground for the preference. The defendant is belied in his version regarding Rs.1500 and as will be discussed presently on the question of the compromise. I, have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the parties had an eqal share in the partnership. 5. The plaintiff has admitted a talk about a compromise but denied the alleged agreement. One Rajmal P.W.1 has been examined by the plaintiff regarding this talk. He says that the dispute was not regarding the accounts of the shop but the private accounts (Gheru Khata). This is nobody's case and the plaintiff himself admits that he had asked Rajmal to settle the accounts of the shop as between himself and the defendant. Shankarlal, D.W.2, says that he and Rajmal settled the plaintiff's claims for Rs.1,700 and the plaintiff agreed but said that he would inform his Kakaji and receive the amount in the evening thereafter. He further says that in the evening the plaintiff said that his uncle was not agreeable to the offer made and therefore, he would have to give the matter further thought. The plaintiff himself, was satisfied, he says, but it was necessary for him to satisfy his uncle. This statement does not prove an agreement. He further says that in the evening the plaintiff said that his uncle was not agreeable to the offer made and therefore, he would have to give the matter further thought. The plaintiff himself, was satisfied, he says, but it was necessary for him to satisfy his uncle. This statement does not prove an agreement. At best there was an offer which the plaintiff said he would accept contingent on his uncle's approval. My finding on the second point is that no contract has been proved. 6. Costs in a suit for partition or dissolution of partnership are ordinarily payable out of the assets, unless untenable pleas, which involve expense to one party are raised in a suit. The plaintiff failed in the suit as regards the rate of interest and the date of dissolution, and since his evidence regarding the compromise is not convincing, it cannot be said that he was put to unmerited expense by the defendant's pleas. I would observe that no particular expense was caused by the plea regarding Rs.5100 or by the plea regarding the respective shares. I would, threfore, direct that the costs of the suit should be paid out of the assets of the partnership. The main points on which this appeal is made, have been decided against the appellant and he succeeds only on the question of costs, which was one within the discretion of the Courts below and this Court. Therefore, while allowing the appeal to the extent of costs as above, I direct that the appellant shall pay full costs of this appeal to the respondent and bear his own.