JUDGMENT H.L. Capoor, J. - Abdul Shakoor, defendant-appellant, has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 16th October, 1965, of the Additional Civil Judge, Bareilly, dismissing the appeal and upholding the decree of the learned Munsif decreeing the suit. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for rendition of accounts in respect of certain works held to have been taken in partnership by the parties with a prayer that a final decree for the amount found due to the plaintiff in accordance with his th share in the partnership be passed. The allegations in the plaint were that there was an agreement between him and defendants nos. 1 and 2 on 2nd November, 1959, by which the parties agreed to carry on the work of pitching and filter in Nanaksagar in the District of Nainital on contract during the year 1367 Fasli, that a partnership agreement was executed relating to it, that the main terms of the said partnership were that the parties had to share the profits equally and the investments in the business had to be done primarily by the plaintiff subject to the condition that if he at some time fell short of funds the defendants would make investments in the business, that the duty of maintaining and explaining the accounts of the said business was on defendant no. 1, that the works concerning the partnership were carried on till April, 1960, and thereafter those works finished, that it was by means of a mutual agreement between the parties that the partnership was terminated, and that in spite of the dissolution of the partnership business defendant no. 1 failed to render accounts and pay the profit relating to it. 3. The suit was contested by defendant no. 1 on the main grounds that after the partnership agreement no work could be secured by the parties from the Government for some time and hence a sub-contract petty work was secured through Babulal and Joshi which was completed till 18th January, 1960, that the plaintiff had himself been realising money from the said contractors and on 6th February, 1960, the plaintiff had also acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 771/- from Joshi and had signed in lieu thereof in the accounts books, that the plaintiff spent only Rs. 497/- from 4th November, 1959 to 7th January, 1960, that the cousin of the plaintiff, defendant nos. 771/- from Joshi and had signed in lieu thereof in the accounts books, that the plaintiff spent only Rs. 497/- from 4th November, 1959 to 7th January, 1960, that the cousin of the plaintiff, defendant nos. 2, had taken Rs. 480/- till 12th January, 1960, that the plaintiff had taken Rs. 50/- on 12th January, 1960 from the defendant, and that on 19th January, 1960, the partnership was dissolved. It may usefully be mentioned here that the appellant, however, admitted that the parties entered into an agreement on 2nd November, 1959, that a partnership deed was reduced to writing, and that the said partnership was dissolved prior to the filing of the suit. 4. The learned Munsif after considering the evidence on record arrived at the findings that in view of the partnership agreement the duty maintaining account books was assigned to defendant no. 1 that the said defendant was also the accounting, party, that the partnership was dissolved on or about 15th May, 1960, when the works were completed, that two pitching works under the subcontracts of Babulal Joshi, one filter work in the name of defendant no. 2 in the jurisdiction of S.D.O. 5, one pitching work in the name of defendant no. 1 within the jurisdiction of S.D.O. 5, and two pitching works in the name of defendant no. 1 within the jurisdiction of S.D.O. 2 were all undertaken as partnership, business pursuant to the agreement of partnership, that the plaintiff invested Rs. 497/- in pieces on different dates, that the plaintiff further invested Rs. 500/- in lump sum on 13th December, 1959, that both these items were found to have been given to defendant no. 1 during the course of partnership business and that the plaintiff was also found to have invested Rs. 500/- on 1st March, 1960, and Rs. 1500/- on 27th March, 1960, through defendant no. 2. After recording these findings the learned Munsif decreed the suit directing defendant no. 1 to render the accounts. 5. In appeal the issues which were involved were (1) How and when the partnership in question was dissolved ? and (2) what items of works were undertaken pursuant to the partnership agreement, dated 2nd November, 1959? and (3) what investments were made by the plaintiff in the partnership business? 1 to render the accounts. 5. In appeal the issues which were involved were (1) How and when the partnership in question was dissolved ? and (2) what items of works were undertaken pursuant to the partnership agreement, dated 2nd November, 1959? and (3) what investments were made by the plaintiff in the partnership business? The lower appellate court arrived at the findings that the works undertaken by the partnership had been completed before the filing of the suit and this event resulted in the dissolution of the partnership in the eye of law, that the two items of soiling work were rightly disallowed by the learned Munsif, and that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- through Exts. 3 and 4 were also invested in the partnership business and the finding of the trial court was correct. Accordingly the decree of the trial court was upheld and the appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court. 6. From the narration of facts as given above and from the findings of the courts below it appears that this second appeal is concluded by findings of fact with the result that no interference is called for. 7. In the result, the appeal is devoid of all force and is hereby dismissed with costs.