Judgment : The Judgment was delivered by : The plaintiff who has lost his case in the trial Court is the appellant. The suit is for rendition of accounts. 2. It appears that plaintiff and the second defendant were partners of a firm. By mutual agreement the firm was dissolved on 2-8-1976 and for the share of the plaintiff he was paid a sum of Rs. 5, 60, 000/- subsequently the second defendant along with the third defendant reconstituted the partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. P. Mittulal Lalah and Sons which is impleaded as the first defendant. The plaintiff came to know that subsequent to the dissolution, in respect of the exports effected by the said dissolved firm from the period from 15-10-1970 to 31-7-1976 the first defendant-firm has received cash incentives from the Joint Chief Controller of Import and Exports. This cash incentive has not been taken into account when the firm was dissolved. The defendants are liable to account to the plaintiff in respect of this cash incentive received and pay him 50% of the same. In spite of demand made by the plaintiff the defendants would not render accounts and pay the amounts. Therefore the suit. 3. The defendants in their written statement admitted receipt of cash incentive. But they would contend that that was received long after the dissolution of the firm. At the time of dissolution there was no pending claim with the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports by the dissolved firm. The cash incentive received was not to be reckoned as an asset of the firm when it was dissolved. The plaintiff is not entitled to make any claim to the said cash incentive. In the deed of dissolution the plaintiff had relinquished in favour of the second defendant all the assets and liabilities including the trade mark, names, licences, power connection etc. for a consideration of Rs. 5, 60, 000/-. Therefore the plaintiffs claim is liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the cash incentive received by the first defendant firm. Therefore the trial Court dismissed the suit. 5. In the appeal the only point falls for consideration is whether the said finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in the cash incentives is not correct. 6. Therefore the trial Court dismissed the suit. 5. In the appeal the only point falls for consideration is whether the said finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in the cash incentives is not correct. 6. The plaintiff P. D. Yudhistar and the second defendant Mrs. Shanthi D. Ram dissolved their firm on 2-8-1976 under a registered document Ex. B. 1 in which the terms of dissolution were reduced into writing. It appears the second defendant was the stepmother of the plaintiff. A reading of the document would show that the plaintiff relinquished his half share in the partnership firm M/s. P. Mittulal Lalah and Sons in favour of the second defendant in consideration of receipt of a sum of Rs. 5, 60, 000/-. Thereafter the second defendant along with the third defendant reconstituted the partnership, but in the same name of the dissolved partnership i.e. M/s. P. Muttulal Lalah and Sons which has been impleaded as the first defendant. As per Cl. (3) of Ex. B. 1 the plaintiff has relinquished his half share with all his claims in the business. This means the second defendant had taken over the entire business including the share of the plaintiff in consideration of payment of Rs. 5, 60, 000/-to the plaintiff for his share. The plaintiff therefore cannot have any right in the business run by the second defendant with the third defendant as her partner. Thus the dissolution of the original firm of the plaintiff and the second defendant is not in the usual way of two partners sharing the-assets and liabilities of the firm themselves but it is a case of one partner relinquishing his share in the partnership business in favour the other partner. Thus understanding the terms of the dissolution, the plaintiffs case has to be considered. According to the plaintiff, subsequent to Ex. B.1 the reconstituted first defendant firm of the second defendant and third defendant received from the Government cash incentives (on three occasions, first Rs. 76, 817/-, secondly Rs. 65, 315/- and thirdly Rupees 74, 264/- all totalling to Rs. Thus understanding the terms of the dissolution, the plaintiffs case has to be considered. According to the plaintiff, subsequent to Ex. B.1 the reconstituted first defendant firm of the second defendant and third defendant received from the Government cash incentives (on three occasions, first Rs. 76, 817/-, secondly Rs. 65, 315/- and thirdly Rupees 74, 264/- all totalling to Rs. 2, 16, 396/-) in respect of the business done by the original partnership firm of the plaintiff and the second defendant and this amount was not taken into consideration at the time of the dissolution of the original firm and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to half of this sum. According to the defendants the plaintiff has relinquished his share and claim in the firm which includes the cash incentive also and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim now this amount. As seen above, Cl. (3) of Ex. B.1 clearly states that the plaintiff has relinquished his half share in all his claims in the business. The trial Court has found on evidence that it is clear that the plaintiff knew about the cash incentive scheme and he himself has made an application for cash incentive for the business done by the original firm and that application was negatived by the Government. It is also seen from the evidence that subsequent to the reconstitution of the firm by the second and third defendants the first defendant firm revived the claim and it was with the third defendants efforts the amounts were received as seen from Exs. B.3 to B.5 applications, Ex. B.6 letter from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports to the first defendant firm, and Exs. B.7 and B.8 letters from the first defendant. It must be remembered that no cash incentive was due to the old firm and the Government was not bound to pay any such amount, and for the purpose of encouraging exports the Government was paying cash incentives. Ex. B.1 further shows that the parties have agreed that if there is any tax amount payable by the firm or if the firm receives any refund of tax or if there is any amount borrowed by the firm which has not been accounted in the account books both the parties shall share those amounts, but nothing about the cash incentives has been mentioned. From these particularly Cl. From these particularly Cl. (3), it is manifest that the plaintiff shall not make any claim including any cash incentive payment received subsequently by the reconstituted firm with regard to the business of the original partnership firm. Therefore, there is no justification in the claim of the plaintiff for half share in the cash incentive amount received. Mr. M. R. Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff would however rely on two decisions viz., "S. Sethurathnam v. M. Muthiah", 1978 (2) MLJ 337 : 1979 AIR(Mad) 60 ) and "K. Gopala Chetty v. T. G. Vijayaraghavachariar", 1922 (16) LW 200 . In the first case at the time of dissolution one of the partners was given full right to collect all the assets of the erestwhile partnership firm. That partner agreed to pay the share of the other partners of the amounts so collected and with the hope of realising the dues he paid up those share amounts. But it so happened that one of the amounts which was thought to be due from a Bank was indeed not due. Therefore, the partner who undertook to collect the assets and paid the shares of the other partners filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid by him in respect of the amount thought to be due from the bank but there was no amount due. It was held that there was a mutual mistake among the partners regarding the particular item of account and therefore the settled accounts could be reopened and amounts among the partners could be resettled. It was also held that the theory of unjust enrichment applies to the case. In our case there is no such mutual mistake between the partners. In fact there is no such plea at all. No question of unjust enrichment also arises because there was no mutual mistake and no unexpected amount was received by the defendants. Hence the said decision will not help the appellant-plaintiff. In our case there is no such mutual mistake between the partners. In fact there is no such plea at all. No question of unjust enrichment also arises because there was no mutual mistake and no unexpected amount was received by the defendants. Hence the said decision will not help the appellant-plaintiff. In the second decision relied on by the learned counsel the rule of law is stated thus :- "If a partnership has been dissolved and the accounts have been wound up and each partner has paid what he has to contribute to the debts of the partnership and received his share of the profits, the mutual rights and obligations having been thus all discharge, and then it turn out afterwards that there was some item to the credit of the partnership which was either forgotten or treated as valueless by reason of the supposed insolvency of the debtor or for any other cause, which item afterwards becomes of value and falls in, it ought to be divided between the partners in proportion to their share in the original partnership. There is no reason why one should have it more than the other." This decision also will not apply to our case because there is no question of the cash incentive having been forgotten or treated as valueless at the time of dissolution. Thus this decision also will not help the appellant-plaintiff. Thus, I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.