Order. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 766 of 1955 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Salem (O.S. No. 65 of 1954, Sub-Court, Salem) sought relief for dissolution of the suit partnership and for taking accounts. He alleged that himself, the defendant in the suit, and one K. Rajam Iyengar formed a partnership under the name and style of Sri Rajeswari &38; Co., (Handlooms), Salem. According to the plaintiff the partnership was one terminable at will. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the firm had been dissolved on 14th March, 1951 or on any other date according to law and also prayed for taking the accounts of the firm. The defendant contended that the only partners of the firm were himself and the plaintiff and that Rajam Iyengar was never a partner. He stated that the plaintiff was in management of the partnership business, and that he acted on his own responsibility and disposed of the stocks on 14th March, 1951. He charged the plaintiff with having evaded the giving of the true accounts to the defendant. Several issues were framed in the suit and at the trial of the suit the account books of the firm were marked as Exhibits A-13 to A-23. The learned District Munsif of Salem found that Rajam Iyengar was also a partner in the suit partnership that the partners were entitled to share equally the profits and contribute equally to the losses sustained by the firm, and that the amounts advanced by the plaintiff to the suit firm shall not carry any interest. He further held that the suit firm was dissolved on 5th March, 1954 and that the accounts of the firm should be taken from 14th December, 1945, the date on which the business commenced upto 5th March, 1954, the date of dissolution. In the result the learned District Munsif passed a preliminary decree for taking accounts of the suit firm in acordance with his findings in the judgment. T. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate, was appointed as the Commissioner in the final decree proceedings to go into the state of accounts between the partners. On behalf of the defendant a memorandum was filed before the Commissioner stating that he had reasons to believe that the accounts of the firm had not been properly and correctly kept by the plaintiff. T. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate, was appointed as the Commissioner in the final decree proceedings to go into the state of accounts between the partners. On behalf of the defendant a memorandum was filed before the Commissioner stating that he had reasons to believe that the accounts of the firm had not been properly and correctly kept by the plaintiff. Paragraph 4 of the memorandum, which is material, is as follows:- “It is submitted that in so far as there is no finding by the Court that any of the books before the Commissioner are regularly and properly kept, it is untenable for the plaintiff to request the Commissioner to proceed on the basis of the books and without going into the truth of the entries contained in the said books............” A memorandum was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff before the Commissioner. Paragraph 3 of the memorandum was as follows: “The books of accounts of the partnership are produced in Court and the Income-tax returns have been prepared based on those books and the income-tax assessments have been finalised and the income-tax due by the partners have also been paid. So at this stage the defendant should not be allowed or permitted to raise any objections with regard to any particular entry in those account books. He is not in law entitled to raise any objection or to lead any evidence at this stage before the Commissioner regarding any entry in the account books. Admittedly the books filed in the case are the books of the suit partnership and the defendant is fully aware of all the entries in the books and maintained by firm.” In view of this contest between the parties as to how far the account-books of the firm produced before the Commissioner should form the basis for further proceedings to work out the rights and liabilities of the partners the Commissioner filed a memorandum before the learned District Munsif on 16th January, 1959. He stated thus in his memorandum:- “As the objection raised is stated to be legal one I am unable without a direction from Court as to whether I should go into the details regarding the objections filed by the parties.” This sentence is incomplete and it shows the perfunctory manner adopted by the Commissioner. He stated thus in his memorandum:- “As the objection raised is stated to be legal one I am unable without a direction from Court as to whether I should go into the details regarding the objections filed by the parties.” This sentence is incomplete and it shows the perfunctory manner adopted by the Commissioner. The Commissioner wanted a direction from the Court whether he should proceed to take accounts as found entered in the books of account or whether he should entertain objections with regard to all or any of the entries in the account-books raised by the defendant. He also wanted a direction whether any evidence can be taken in regard to the dispute between the parties relating to the account-books of the firm. The learned District Munsif of Salem heard arguments upon this memorandum filed by the Commissioner and passed an order on 2nd March, 1959. He was of the opinion that under the circumstances, it was too late for the defendant to contend that the account-books were not genuine. He gave a specific direction to the Commissioner that he need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the entries made in the account books. The Commissioner was directed to take the account-books as such and proceed with the enquiry in the light of the preliminary decree and to submit his report after taking the accounts of credits and debits and liabilities of the partners and all dealings and transactions between the parties between 14th December, 1945 and 5th March, 1954. The defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition against the said order feeling himself aggrieved by the mode of directions issued by the Court below in the matter of taking accounts. The learned advocate for the petitioner contended that there was no warrant or justification for the Court below to assume that the account-books of the suit partnership produced already were genuine so as to preclude him from challenging their correctness at this stage. He further contended that if the account-books already produced purporting to be those of the suit partnership be taken as conclusive evidence of the transactions entered therein, the defendant will stand deprived of all his rights in the matter as he is compelled to acquiesce in the "fait accompli ". This argument has considerable force and has to be given effect to. This argument has considerable force and has to be given effect to. Under section 9 of the Indian Partnership Act partners should render true accounts and full information of all things affecting the firm to any partner or his legal representatives. Section 12 (d) of the Act provides that every partner has a right to have access to and to inspect and copy of any of the books of the firm. Maintaining true and proper accounts in the regular course of business of any partnership firm is one of the duties imposed upon the partners in general. Every partner of a firm has got a statutory right to inspect the books of accounts of the firm, to scrutinise the entries made therein and thereby to inform himself of the progress of the business of the firm. When a set of partnership accounts is therefore produced by one partner claiming that the books of account relate to the partnership business, and that they were maintained regularly in the usual course of business, the law attaches some evidentiary value to them by investing them with the character of prima facie genuineness. In Lodge v. Prichard1, Knight Bruce, L.J., observed as follows: "Prima facie books of the partnership are evidence among all the partners, for them all and against them all, owing to the agency which pervaded all the partnership transactions. If one partner succeeded in the establishing a case of fraud that would form a ground for an exception from the general rule; nor is there anything in the rule to exclude an allegation of a mistaken or erroneous omission or insertion." In Daji Abaji v. Govind Narayan2, Macleod,J.,as he then was, held that the partnership books being accessible to all the partners and being kept more or less under the surveillance of them were prima facie evidence against each of them, and also for any of them against the others, but that they were not conclusive evidence if the person complaining of them can by clear evidence show that there was an error in the books. The learned Judge also held that when there was a question of surcharging and falsifying the accounts the case alleged must be clearly proved by the persons impeaching them. The learned Judge also held that when there was a question of surcharging and falsifying the accounts the case alleged must be clearly proved by the persons impeaching them. The learned Judge observed at page 814 as follows: "Lindley on Partnership (at page 566) says as follows, "with respect to evidence upon which the accounts are to be taken ; as regards the partnership books. These being accessible to all the partners,. and being kept more or less under the surveillance of them all, are prima facie evidence against each of them and therefore also for any of them against the others." Mr. Raikes wishes to read this passage as if it ran: "If it is proved that all the partners have had access to the books and if it is proved that they have been kept more or less under the surveillance of them all, then they are prima facie evidence. This is a construction which the words above quoted cannot possibly bear. The clear meaning is that owing to the nature of the relationship between partners the books must be taken as being accessible to all and as being kept more or less under the surveillance of them all. If Mr. Raikes’ argument were correct it would follow that one partner who took no part in the active business of the firm and never went near the office might call upon his co-partner in a partnership account to prove every item appearing in the books." The learned Judge ultimately repelled the contention of Mr. Raikes and held that the partnership books of account were prima facie evidence between the partners either for or against them. It is clear that the books of account of the suit partnership already produced in the Court below constitute prima facie evidence amongst the partners for them all and against them. But the learned District Munsif was however in error when he held that the Commissioner need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the entries made in the account-books. But the learned District Munsif was however in error when he held that the Commissioner need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the entries made in the account-books. The presumption in favour of the genuineness of the account-books of the firm is certainly a rebuttable presumption as it will be always open to the person challenging the account-books to show that they are not genuine or to show that particular entries in the account-books are factious and not genuine and thus destroy the prima facie evidentiary value afforded by the books of accounts. Order 20, rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is as follows: “Special directions as to accounts. - The Court may either by the decree directing an account to be taken or by any subsequent order give special directions with regard to the mode in which the account has to be taken or vouched and in particular may direct that in taking the account the books of account in which the accounts in question have been kept shall be taken as prima facie evidence of the truth of the matters therein contained with liberty to the parties interested to take such objection thereto as they may be advised.” The learned District Munsif in the present case ought to have issued directions in the light of Order 20, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, but he failed to do so. Indeed the learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondent did not seek to support the judgment of the Court below in its entirety but submitted that the proper direction that should issue was one under Order 20, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. I agree with this contention. I therefore direct that the account books of the partnership produced and marked in the case should be taken as prima facie evidence of the truth of the matters therein contained and that the parties interested will have liberty to take such objections thereto as they may be advised. Subject to this modification the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R.M. ----- Order modified.