JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the preliminary decree and judgment dated January 19, 1976, passed by the Additional District Judge, Merta, by which the learned Additional District Judge, in the suit filed by the plaintiff Ram Chandra, determined the proportionate share of the parties in the partnership and declared that the partnership shall be deemed to have been dissolved on 17.1.68. 2. Plaintiff Ram Chandra filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Merta, for rendition of the accounts with respect to the factory of the firm Asiatic Marble and Minerals Industries Limited, Makrana. The case of the plaintiff, as set up in the plaint, is that on 8.2.1959, he purchased a plot of land from Sadul Singh Kacchhawaha (Resident of Makrana) for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- for the installation of a factory premises. After the purchase of the land, he made constructions and installed the factory for cutting, polishing and sawing marble. He was the sole proprietor of the firm and for the installation of the factory he took Rs. 10,000/- as loan from the State Government and invested the same in the factory. The factory started working in the year 1960. In the year 1961, he took defendant No.1 Asu Lal alias Asha Ram as a partner in the firm to share equally in the profits earned and to contribute equally to the losses sustained by the factory. In the year 1963, both of them took Madan Lal (defendant No.2) as a partner in the firm. Madan Lal was entitled for 1/4 share in the profit only. It was agreed that the land, over which the factory is installed, will remain the property of the plaintiff and the firm will pay off the loan taken by the plaintiff from the State Government and till the loan of the plaintiff is paid off, the machineries and engine will, also remain the property of the plaintiff. It was, also, agreed that the partnership will be at 'will' and the amount will be invested by the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff will look after the work and in exchange, both will have the equal share in the profits and losses of the firm. It was, also, agreed that the partnership will be at 'will' and the amount will be invested by the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff will look after the work and in exchange, both will have the equal share in the profits and losses of the firm. After the inclusion of the defendant No.2 as the partner for 1/4 share in the profit only, he was authorised to look after the work of the factory and to keep the accounts. After the inclusion of defendant No.2 as the partner, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 were entitled only for six Annas share each in the profits earned and 50% each in the losses sustained. The firm worked upto Deepawali of 1965, and the accounts were rendered to him, but till that date, no profit was earned by the partnership firm. After the Deepawali of 1965, the defendant No.1 opened the account in the name of his relatives and did not make credit entries in the account books of the firm and started mismanaging the factory. He, also, tried to create a new partnership and is not making payment to the State Government of the loan amount and, also, not rendering the accounts. As the defendants were mismanaging the factory and were not keeping the proper accounts, he, therefore, by a registered notice dated January 16, 1967, dissolved the partnership. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff for rendition of the accounts of the firm M/s. Asiatic Marble and Minerals Industries Limited, Makrana, be decreed in his favour. Alternatively, it was prayed that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the partnership was not dissolved then it may be ordered to be dissolved so that the plaintiff, who was the sole proprietor of the firm, may do his business in the same capacity. A prayer for appointment of a Receiver was, also, made. 3. The suit was contested by both the defendants. Defendant No.1 Asha Ram emphatically denied the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. He denied that the plaintiff has purchased the land for the construction of the factory from Sadul Singh and stated that the alleged sale deed by Sadul Singh made in favour of the plaintiff is a bogus document. According to him, the land was actually purchased by him for installation of a factory from one Modu Balai. He denied that the plaintiff has purchased the land for the construction of the factory from Sadul Singh and stated that the alleged sale deed by Sadul Singh made in favour of the plaintiff is a bogus document. According to him, the land was actually purchased by him for installation of a factory from one Modu Balai. It was the defendant No.1, who purchased the corner plot of four Bighas ten Biswas out of the total land of 30 Bighas 10 Biswas of Khasra No.711 for a consideration of Rs. 600/- and the price was paid to him in two instalments. Modu Balai was a member of Scheduled Caste and, therefore, no sale deed was executed but the possession of the land was taken and on this plot of land, the foundation stone was laid by the defendant No.1 on October 22,1958. He, also, denied making any investment by the plaintiff in the construction of the factory premises or in the purchase of the machineries etc. Whatever the capital was invested in the construction of the factory building or in the purchase of the machineries, was invested by the defendant No. 1. He invested Rs. 48,845.60p. upto October 31,1960, and further invested Rs. 7967.80p. between 1.11.60 to 31.12.60, and Rs. 7492.75p. between 1.1.62 to 27.10.62, in this factory. It is, also, stated in the written statement that the amount invested by the defendant No.1 was of his mother Smt. Kesar Devi (widow of Gulla Ram) and his sister-in-law Smt. Rukmani (widow of Poosa Ram), who had the spare money with them and wanted to invest the same in some business without disclosing their identity and, therefore, they invested their money in the factory in the name of the defendant No.1 and as the defendant No.1 was a Government servant, therefore, he took the plaintiff, who was his close friend and had an experience in the marble business, as a partner in the firm to look after the business of the firm. He (plaintiff) was merely a working partner and, therefore, he was taken in the firm on 1/4 share in the profits and losses of the factory. It is further stated that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 that whenever it will be felt that the plaintiff is not carrying on the work of the factory properly, he will be turned out from the partnership. It is further stated that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 that whenever it will be felt that the plaintiff is not carrying on the work of the factory properly, he will be turned out from the partnership. This agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 took place in the first week of June, 1958. The plaintiff used to make credit entries of the amount sent by the defendant No.1 in his own name but when it was detected by the defendant No.1 in the month of September, 1959, then the plaintiff debited the amount of Rs. 10,100/- sent by the defendant No.1 and if was credited by the plaintiff in his own name. It was, however, admitted that the plaintiff took a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the State Government for the installation of the factory, but invested only Rs. 9875/- out of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and this amount too was taken away by the plaintiff from the factory for his own expenses. It is, also, stated in the written statement that this factory started working in the year 1960, under the management of the plaintiff, but it was running in loss due to the slackness and mismanagement of the plaintiff and, therefore, the defendant No.1 thought it proper to turn out the plaintiff from the partnership firm and the partnership was dissolved in the month of September, 1962. As the partnership was dissolved in the month of September, 1962, the plaintiff is, therefore, neither entitled for any profit in the partnership firm after September, 1962, nor is he entitled for the rendition of the accounts of the firm, as the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time. After removing the plaintiff from the partnership firm, the defendant No.1 took the defendant No.2 for managing this factory and the defendant No.2 who was to manage he factory and to keep the accounts, was entitled for 1/4 share in the profits, only, and this partnership too carne to an end when the Receiver was appointed to take over the charge of the factory. 4. In the. 4. In the. additional pleas, it was, also, pleaded that in order to avoid litigations) between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, two persons, namely, Madan Lal (defendant No.2) and one Ram Vallabh Chokda, were appointed as the Mediators in the year 1965, with the consent of the plaintiff. It was settled by them that the defendant No.1 will pay Rs. 17,000/- to the plaintiff as compensation for turning him out of the partnership even though nothing remained due. It is,also, stated in the written statement that in the notice dated January 16,1968, served by the plaintiff, it is mentioned that the partnership was dissolved on 16.3.1985. When the partnership was already dissolved on 16.3.65, as stated in the notice, then the partnership already dissolved, cannot be dissolved again on 16.3.1968. The defendant No.1, also, denied the alleged act of mis management by him as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. It was, also, stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is really for declaration and not for rendition of the accounts and, therefore, the suit deserves to be thrown out on the ground of insufficiency of the Court fee paid. It was, also, stated that in the plaint the plaintiff has taken a plea that the partnership was dissolved on 16.3.65 and accounts were rendered to him upto that period but till the factory has not earned any profit, therefore, the suit for rendition of accounts and for dissolution of the partnership is not maintainable. 5. The defendant No.2, also, contested the suit and riled his written statement. In the written statement, it was admitted by the defendant No.2 that he agreed, in the month of October, 1962, to manage the work of the factory on the condition that he will get Four Annas share in the gross profit of the firm, out of which neither any amount of interest nor that of depreciation or income tax payable, will be deducted while computing his share. It has, also, been stated that he will not be liable to any losses sustained by the partnership firm and the losses will be borne out by the defendant No. 1 only. It was, also, agreed that whatever amount will be invested by him, he will be entitled for interest @ Re.1/- per cent per month on that amount. It has, also, been stated that he will not be liable to any losses sustained by the partnership firm and the losses will be borne out by the defendant No. 1 only. It was, also, agreed that whatever amount will be invested by him, he will be entitled for interest @ Re.1/- per cent per month on that amount. It was, also, stated that the accounts of the firm were to be maintained by the Munim. He denied the act of his mis-management, mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint. In the amended written statement, the defendant No.2 further pleaded that he invested Rs. 20,000/- upto 1966, which stand to his credit in the account books of the firm, which amount he is entitled to get back alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. 6. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statements filed by the defendants. The averments made in the plaint were re-affirmed and it was stated in the rejoinder that the whole amount was invested by him and whatever bills etc. were available with him, were produced by him. The making of the whole investment by the defendant No.1 and the dissolution of the partnership in the year 1962, were denied. The dissolution of the firm with effect from March 16,1965 (the date mentioned in the notice) was admitted, but it was stated that the firm was not dissolved though the notice was served upon the plaintiff and the dissolution can be presumed only with effect from 16.1.1968, when the notice to this effect was given to both the defendants. The investment made by Mst. Kesar Devi and Mst. Rukmani Devi, were, also, denied. The purchasing of the land from Modu Balai and installation of the factory on this land by the defendant No.! was, also, denied. However, it was admitted that he himself purchased the land from Modu Balai for a consideration of Rs. 600/-, but he sold that land to Nand Lai, who, also, installed marble factory over that land. The establishment of the factory on the land purchased by defendant No.1 from Modu Balai was specifically denied. The dissolution of the partnership in the year 1962, or 1965, was, also, denied. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed thirteen issues. Thereafter the defendant No.2 sought amendment in the written statement. The establishment of the factory on the land purchased by defendant No.1 from Modu Balai was specifically denied. The dissolution of the partnership in the year 1962, or 1965, was, also, denied. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed thirteen issues. Thereafter the defendant No.2 sought amendment in the written statement. The amendment was allowed and the amended written statement has filed by him and an additional issue was, thereafter, framed by the learned Trial Court. The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined sixteen witnesses and placed on record thirty five documents. The defendant No.1, in support of its case, examined fourteen witnesses and placed on record twenty seven documents. The defendant No. 2, in support of its case, examined himself as D2/DW 1, but did not place any document on record. The learned Trial Court, after trial, decided issues numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 10 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit filed by him. Issue No.6 was not pressed and issue No.9 was deleted vide order dated July 23,1971. The additional issue No.1 was, also, decided against the defendant No.2. While decreeing the suit, filed by the plaintiff, the learned Trial Court held that the land, over which the factory has been installed, was purchased by the plaintiff from Sadul Singh and that land falls within the Khasra No.711. The Trial Court further held that the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 came into existence on the Deepawali of 1960, on the terms stated in the plaint and not from 20.10.1958. The Trial Court further observed that the partnership came to an end on 17.1.1968, when the notice on both the other partners were served and not on 16.3.1965. The Court further opined that the accounts were not rendered to the plaintiff and, therefore, he is entitled for rendition of the accounts upto 17.1.1968. The Trial Court did not allow special cost to either of the parties and decided issue No. 11-A against the defendant No.1 and issue No.11-B against the plaintiff. It is against this preliminary decree and judgment dated January 19,1976, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Merta, that the defendant appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. The Trial Court did not allow special cost to either of the parties and decided issue No. 11-A against the defendant No.1 and issue No.11-B against the plaintiff. It is against this preliminary decree and judgment dated January 19,1976, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Merta, that the defendant appellant has preferred this appeal. 8. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court committed an error in deciding issues numbers 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 and 10 against the defendant appellant and in pasting a preliminary decree in the suit filed by the plaintiff. His submission is that from the evidence produced by the parties, it stands proved that the land in question, over which the factory has been installed, was purchased by the defendant No.1 from Modu Balai and it was he who invested the money for the purchase of the land as well as for the installation of the factory. It was, also, contended that the learned Trial Court itself came to the conclusion that the land in question, over which the factory has been installed, is situated in Khasra No. 711, which belongs to Modu Balai and Sadul Singh had no land in Khasra No. 711 and, therefore, there was no question of installing any factory over the land purchased from Sadul Singh and the factory was installed on the land purchased from Modu Bala], which was purchased by the defendant No.1. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the partnership came into existence in the year 1958, and not on Deepawali of 1960, as has been held by the learned Trial Court. The findings of the learned Trial Court on issues Nos. 2,3,5,7 and other issued, were, also, challenged. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the decree and judgment passed by the learned lower Court and argued that no case for interference in the decree and judgment passed by the learned Trial Court has been made out. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also, filed cross objections challenging the decree and judgment passed by the Court below. The contention of the learned Counsel for the objector (respondent No.1) is that the Trial Court, though gave a finding that the land of the factory was purchased by him from Sadul Singh for a consideration of Rs. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also, filed cross objections challenging the decree and judgment passed by the Court below. The contention of the learned Counsel for the objector (respondent No.1) is that the Trial Court, though gave a finding that the land of the factory was purchased by him from Sadul Singh for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- and the construction of the factory building was made by him but still treated the land, the factory building and the machineries as the properties of the partnership. Neither there was any evidence on record nor was it the case of any of the parties that either the factory or the machineries are the properties of the partnership and, therefore, the decree and judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, on this count, deserve to be set aside and the whole case of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed. The defendant respondent No.2, also, supported the decree and judgment passed by the Court below on all other counts except that he was a partner in the firm to 1/4 share in the gross profit and he is,therefore, entitled for the share in the gross profit and is further entitled to the amount which amount stands to his credit in the account books of the firm. He is, also, entitled for 1/4 share in the value of the property, which appreciated after his entry into the partnership business.Before considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be proper first to look into the evidence produced by the plaintiff and the defendants in support of their case. The plaintiff, in support of its case, examined sixteen witnesses and placed reliance over thirty seven documents. The defendant No.1, on the other hand, produced fourteen witnesses and placed reliance over twenty seven documents, including the account books of the firm and various other entries in these account books. 9. PW 1 Dau Lal was the Tehsildar, Parbatsar, and was acting as the Sub Registrar in the Registration Department, before whom Ex.1, the sale deed, was presented for registration by one Sadul Singh for the sale of his plot of land in favour of Ram Chandra. The sale deed Ex. 1 was registered by this witness and it bears his signatures. PW 2 Ram Chandra is the plaintiff in the case. The sale deed Ex. 1 was registered by this witness and it bears his signatures. PW 2 Ram Chandra is the plaintiff in the case. He has stated that he purchased the land in question for the construction of a factory and this plot was purchased from Sadul Singh S/o Soor Singh R/o Makrana. He had a talk regarding the purchase of this land with Sadul Singh in the month of September, 1958, and a document on plain papers was, also, executed. He laid the foundation stone of the factory through one Mangi La: Harijan and paid Rs. 15/- to him as the labour charges to level the land, who dug the foundation and laid the foundation stone on 21.10.1985 the day of Dashera. The sale deed of this land was written on February 8,1959, which was got registered on 14.2.59, and on the same day, a sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid to Sadul Singh as the price of the land. The sale deed Ex.1 was written by Dadhimati Prasad the petition writer which bears the thumb impression of Sadul Singh at point W. Sadul Singh got this sale deed executed in the presence of Ujiran Singh and Mohan Lal, who are the attesting witnesses of the sale deed Ex.1 Sadul Singh breathed his last three four years before. He started maintaining the account book (Chopdi) for making entries regarding the expenses and entered therein the amount of Rs. 15/- which was paid to Mangi Lal Harijan for laying down the foundation stone. This entry has been made by Jugal Kishore Chandak. The entries No. 1 to 23 and entry No. 24 in this account relate to the expenses which were incurred by him in connection with the construction of the Factory. The entries upto Serial Number 24 were made by Jugal Kishore Chandak in his presence but so far as the entry made thereafter, including Rs. 10,100/- is concerned, that is not in his knowledge. On 30.9.59, the name of 'Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana' was given to this factory and he was the sole proprietor of this factory. The construction work of this factory continued upto 30.9.1959. 10,100/- is concerned, that is not in his knowledge. On 30.9.59, the name of 'Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana' was given to this factory and he was the sole proprietor of this factory. The construction work of this factory continued upto 30.9.1959. On Deepawali of 1960, he took Asha Ram alias Asu Ram (defendant No.1) as the partner in the factory on the condition that (i) the land and the building will remain the personal properties of the plaintiff), (ii) the amount of Rs. 10,000/ which was taken by the plaintiff as a loan from the State Government, will be paid from the profits after the start of the factory, (iii) the partnership will be at 'will, (iv) the amount of Rs. 20,000/- which was spent by him and the amount of Rs. 5000/- which was spent by his father for the purchase of the land and the remaining amount will be spent by the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff will look after the work of the factory, (v) no rent will be paid for the land and the building of the factory and whatever amount the defendant will continue to pay to the factory, he will not be entitled for any interest thereon, and (vi) both the plaintiff and the defendant will be entitled for 50% profit in the business of the factory and will, also, continue to bear fifty fifty of the losses sustained by the factory. He opened an account in the Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Makrana Branch, Makrana, on 20.9.1961, in the name of the factory showing himself as the sole proprietor of the firm. On Deepawali of 1962, Madan Lal (defendant No.2) was, also, taken as a partner in the factory. Madan Lal agreed to spend Rs. 20,000/-. It was orally agreed that the defendant No. 2 Madan Lal will be entitled for 4 Annas share in the profits and the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 will share the losses fifty fifty and the defendant No.2 Madan Lal will not be liable so far as the losses are concerned. It was, also, agreed that so far as the maintenance of the machineries etc. is concerned, that was the responsibility of the plaintiff while so far as the accounts of the business parts are concerned, that will be looked after by Madan Lal. The remaining conditions remained the same. 10. It was, also, agreed that so far as the maintenance of the machineries etc. is concerned, that was the responsibility of the plaintiff while so far as the accounts of the business parts are concerned, that will be looked after by Madan Lal. The remaining conditions remained the same. 10. There was a land adjacent to the land of Sadul Singh, which belonged to Modu Balai and this 21/2 Bighas of land was purchased by him from Modu Balai for a consideration of Rs. 600/- and he got a document executed on a stamp of Rs. 1/-. Since Modu Balai was a member of Scheduled Caste community, therefore, the sale deed could not be got registered. He sold this land further to Nand Lal Gaur R/o Kuchaman Road. Nand Lal Gaur, also, installed a marble factory on this land. The factory is, now being run by the Receiver. He gave a notice for dissolving the partnership to both of the defendants by the registered post. The entries in the account books, which have been made by Jugal Kishore Chandak, are made in his supervision while the later entries have been manipulated by the defendant No.1 illegally. Several cuttings have been made in the account books. In the Rokad of 1962, a cutting has been made in the entry Ex. A.6 at page No. 107. An amount of Rs. 17,000/- has been credited in his account and thereafter it has been debited to the building account of the factory, but later on both these entries have been struck off. He has, also, stated that on 15.7.64, he was challaned under the Factories Act being the Manager of the factory, in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar, vide Ex.12. The defendant, in the year 1965, sent a Draft of Partnership Deed to him, which is Ex.22 on record, which was not acceptable to him. Mangu the attesting witness of Ex.1 has breathed his last. The instalments against the loan, taken by him from the State Government, were not paid and, therefore, a warrant of attachment for the recovery of the afore said amount, was issued and Madan Lal deposited the amount of Rs. 6200/- against this in five six instalments. Mangu the attesting witness of Ex.1 has breathed his last. The instalments against the loan, taken by him from the State Government, were not paid and, therefore, a warrant of attachment for the recovery of the afore said amount, was issued and Madan Lal deposited the amount of Rs. 6200/- against this in five six instalments. In the cross examination, when he was confronted with his statement given in the Court from that of his stand taken in the plaint and the rejoinder, he stated that what he stated in the Court is correct and the facts mentioned in the plaint and the rejoinder were mentioned due to some misunderstanding as he had no record with him. He has further stated that he took the possession of the land in question in the year 1958, and he cannot say why this fact has not been mentioned in the sale deed Ex. 1, though he had informed the petition writer regarding this fact. He has,also, admitted that there is no mention in the sale deed regarding the 'Kacchi Tehrir' the earlier agreement which was returned to Sadul Singh after the sale deed was executed. He, also, showed his ignorance regarding the Khasra Number of the land which was purchased by him, to determine whether it was Khasra No. 711 or not? He has, also, stated that when the sale deed Ex.1 was written by the petition writer at his house, the attesting witnesses had signed it. He has, also, admitted that the entry regarding the amount of Rs. 5000/- paid to Sadul Singh for the sale, has not been made in the account books as the amount was paid by his father. He has denied the suggestion that the factory was constructed on the land which was purchased from Modu Balai of Khasra No. 711. He has, also, admitted that the entry with respect to Rs. 600/- (which was paid to Modu Balai) does find mention in the Chopdi (Ex.A.1) but there is no entry regarding the sale of this land which was sold by him. He has,also, denied that the factory was not constructed on the land of Modu Balai, which was purchased by the defendant No.1, but the factory was constructed on the land which was purchased by him from Sadul Singh. He has, also, stated that Asha Ram did not purchase any land from Modu Balai. He has,also, denied that the factory was not constructed on the land of Modu Balai, which was purchased by the defendant No.1, but the factory was constructed on the land which was purchased by him from Sadul Singh. He has, also, stated that Asha Ram did not purchase any land from Modu Balai. He has admitted that the entries in the Chopdi (Ex.A.1) from serial numbers 1 to 25 are in the handwriting of Jugal Kishore Chandak,which were admitted by his Counsel Mr. Ranjeet Mal, on 20.11.1969, while making admission/denial. At that time he 'was, also, present in the Court alongwith his Counsel when the admission denial of the documents was made. This Chopdi was in his possession upto Deepawali of 1960, and thereafter it was kept in the factory and was given in the custody of Mahajan Munim. He has, also, admitted that Jugal Kishore Chandak, Munim, was employed by him and he worked upto 30.9.1959, and left the service. 11. Thereafter Bhanwar Lal was employed on Deepawali of 1960, and new books of accounts were not opened since 1.10.1959, till Bhanwar Lal was appointed he kept the account in the loose papers and when Bhanwar Lal joined, these papers were given to him and on the basis of these loose papers, the entries were made by Bhanwar Lal in the account books with effect from 1.10.1950 to March, 1960. No work of the factory was conducted during 1.10.1959 to March, 1960, and no necessity arose for making any entry in the account books of the factory/firm. The entries No. 26 to 43 in the account books are in the handwriting of Bhanwar Lal Munim. In reply to the question put to him to explain, he stated that in the rejoinder it has been wrongly mentioned that the defendant No.1 was inducted as a partner in the year 1959, while actually he was taken as a partner in the year 1961, as he had not read the rejoinder which was drafted by his Counsel. He has, also, stated that the entry of Rs. 10,100/- in Ex.A. 1 was wrongfully admitted by his Counsel and, therefore, he filed an application on 23.6.1961, in this respect. He has, also, admitted that the payment of two saw mills and engine was made by the defendant No.1 and he himself has purchased them. He has, also, stated that the entry of Rs. 10,100/- in Ex.A. 1 was wrongfully admitted by his Counsel and, therefore, he filed an application on 23.6.1961, in this respect. He has, also, admitted that the payment of two saw mills and engine was made by the defendant No.1 and he himself has purchased them. He has, also, admitted that the machineries entered in Ex.3 and the bill of which is Ex.A. 19, were purchased by the defendant No. 1 in the month of February or March,1960. The defendant No.1 had purchased Rustom Engine and spare parts from Baroda vide Ex.A 19 to Ex.A. 22. He has,also, admitted that Rustom Engine, mentioned in Ex.A. 19 to Ex.A. 22 were received in the factory in the month of July,1960. He has, also, admitted that the letter pads were got printed from Jaipur in the name of the factory for day to day correspondence from the National Printers Press and the defendant No.I got the bill Ex.A 24 prepared in his own name. He has, also, stated that the defendant No.1 did not make any investment in the factory upto Deepawali of 1960, and he cannot say how much amount he spent upto Deepawali of 1960, but he has, however, admitted that after Deepawali of 1960, he did not make any Investment in the factory. He has, also, admitted that the loan of Rs. 10,000/- was obtained by him from the Government through Draft, the draft of which was received by him and he deposited that draft in the account of Bhagwana Ram for encashment and as and when he required the money, he took that amount from Bhagwana Ram and whatever amount was invested in the factory, the entries thereof were made in the Chopdi. He denied the entries being made in the Chopdi with respect to the amounts which were withdrawn by him for his house hold expenses. He has, also, denied that no amount was paid on behalf of the defendant No.1 time to time totalling Rs. 10,100/- and the entry with respect to this amount has wrongly been made in the name of the defendant No.1 in the account books. He has, also, denied that this partnership was severed in the year 1962, when defendant No. 2 Madan Lal was inducted as a partner . He has, also, denied that the partnership was dissolved in the year 1965. He has, also, denied that this partnership was severed in the year 1962, when defendant No. 2 Madan Lal was inducted as a partner . He has, also, denied that the partnership was dissolved in the year 1965. He has, also, denied regarding the appointments of the mediators, viz., Madan Lal (defendant No.2) and Ram Vallabh, for settling the dispute and that they have allowed the compensation for Rs. 17,000/- to the plaintiff. 12. PW 3 Ujiran Singh has stated that the land, where the factory of the plaintiff is installed, was purchased by the plaintiff from Sadul Singh on Bhadwa Sudi 11 Samvat Year 2015. The deal was settled in his presence for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- and an agreement was written on a plain paper and after about 31/2 months, a sale deed (Ex.1) was executed, which was got registered and he is one of the attesting witnesses to this sale deed Ex.1. He has stated that this amount of Rs. 5000/- was paid by the father of the plaintiff in his presence. The Patta of this land was in the name of Sadul Singh, which was entered in a Bahi, which he has seen. In the cross-examination he has admitted that when the sale deed Ex.1 was executed, no payment was made on that day but the amount was paid on the day of the registration of the sale deed Ex. 1. He has admitted that the Stamp Ex.l was purchased by him. He has, also, admitted that the price of the land, amounting to Rs. 5000/- was paid after six seven days of the execution of the document Ex.l. Sadul Singh put his thumb impressions on Ex.l in his presence on the day when the sale deed Ex. 1 was rgistered. He has, also, stated that two small huts were standing on this plot of land where Sadul Singh used to store the fodder. He does not know the Khasra Number of the land but stated that the land was Abadi land. He has denied that the land in question belongs to Modu Balai.PW 4 Dadhimati Prasad is the scribe of the sale deed Ex.1 and is the petition writer at Parbatsar. He has stated that he wrote Ex.1 the sale deed at the instance of Sadul Singh and read over the contents thereof to Sadul Singh. He has denied that the land in question belongs to Modu Balai.PW 4 Dadhimati Prasad is the scribe of the sale deed Ex.1 and is the petition writer at Parbatsar. He has stated that he wrote Ex.1 the sale deed at the instance of Sadul Singh and read over the contents thereof to Sadul Singh. Sadul Singh neither put his thumb impression on this document before him nor any of the attesting witnesses signed this document in his presence. Ram Chandra had no money with him on that day and, therefore, the document could not be registered on that day and was got registered after five days of the execution of the document.PW 5 Jumna is a labourer and is doing the work of finishing and dressing the stones, excavation of the mines and preparing the lime. He knows plaintiff Ram Chandra Solanki, who constructed the factory for cutting and polishing the marble stones near the Outer signal of Railway Station on Borawar road. He supplied stones as well as the lime for the construction of the factory building. The construction was supervised by Gopi Kishan Vyas, Jugal Kishore Chandak and Ram Chandra and the construction work was done by Iddu and several other labourers. The payment of the price of the stones and the lime, which were supplied by him to Ram Chandra for the construction of the factory, was made by Jugal Kishore Chandak and Gopi Kishan Vyas after making entries in the account books. The payment of the labourers was used to be made after four five days and sometime even thereafter.PW 6 Nan Singh has stated that Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana, is situated on a land which was purchased by Ram Chandra from Sadul Singh. Sadul Singh used to live over this land and this land had two Kaccha huts over it, where he used to store the fodder. In the Southern side of this land, there was the land of Thikana, which is, now, entered in the name of Modu Balai, which land was purchased by Ram Chandra from Modu Balai by Ex.A6. He is a witness to this document Ex.A.6. In the Southern side of this land, there is a way to village Borawar. He has further stated that Ram Chandra sold this land to Nand Lal, which he purchased from Modu Balai. He is a witness to this document Ex.A.6. In the Southern side of this land, there is a way to village Borawar. He has further stated that Ram Chandra sold this land to Nand Lal, which he purchased from Modu Balai. He has further stated that Ram Chandra purchased the land of the South side from Modu Balai and sold the same to Nand Lai, who constructed a factory over this plot and sold it to a person who is a resident of Agra. Ram Chandra constructed the factory on the land which he purchased from Sadul Singh and laid a foundation stone over this land on the day of Vijay Dasmi of Samvat Year 2015, and the 'Muhurat' of engine room was performed in the month of Paush of Samvat Year 2015. He has, also, produced Ex.PW 1.1 (the sale deed), by which Ram Chandra purchased the land from Modu Balai. He has, also, stated that he was present at the time when the foundation stone of this factory was laid. In the cross-examination, he showed his ignorance regarding the Khasra Number of this land. He has, also, admitted that he was a Patwari, who is, now, under suspension.PW 7 Iddu is a mason, who constructed the factory and worked for about twelve months. He constructed the engine room, two water ponds, drains, installed two machineries, constructed one office room and the gate of the factory. Ram Chandra used to make payment of work and the presence was marked in the Work Register either by Jugal Kishore Chandak or by Gopi Kishan Vyas. Previously, there were two rooms on the plot of the land where Sadul Singh used to tie his cattle and store the fodder. In the cross-examination he has admitted that there was only one room on the plot in question and he has, by mistake, mentioned in the examination-in-chief regarding the existence of two rooms. He showed his ignorance regarding the measurements of this land.PW 8 Gopi Kishan Vyas has stated that he worked in the Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana, from the year 1960-61 with Ram Chandra for about four five years. The factory was constructed on the land purchased by the plaintiff from Sadul Singh. He showed his ignorance regarding the measurements of this land.PW 8 Gopi Kishan Vyas has stated that he worked in the Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana, from the year 1960-61 with Ram Chandra for about four five years. The factory was constructed on the land purchased by the plaintiff from Sadul Singh. At the time when this land was purchased by the plaintiff Ram Chandra, there were two Padwas and two small cotes (Baras) in which Sadul Singh used to reside and, also, used to keep fodder. This land was purchased by Ram Chandra in Samvat Year 2015 and after the purchase of this land, on the day of Vijay Dasmi, the foundation stone was laid by Iddu Mason. The construction work of this factory was being supervised by him and the plaintiff and the payments were made by the plaintiff Ram Chandra. The construction work was done measuring 350 feet on the East West side and 300 feet on the North South side. The construction work continued for about eleven months. The plaintiff purchased three trucks of Shelves, Khunties and other iron materials from M/s. Verma Vyas of Ajmer. The attendance of the labourers, who worked for the construction of the factory, was marked in the register Ex. 29 and the entries for the months of February, March, April, August and September, 1959, of the attendance of the workers/ labourers have been made by him. At the time when the engine room and the holes were constructed, Asu Lal alias Asha Ram had no connection with the factory. Asu Lal alias Asha Ram was taken as a partner in the factory on Deepawali of 1960. The talks between Ram Chandra and Asu Lal for entering into the partnership were held in his presence. It was agreed between them that the building and the land will remain the personal properties of Ram Chandra and thereinafter whatever amount will be spent, that will be spent by Asu Lal and he will not be entitled for any interest and Ram Chandra, who will supervise the work, will not be entitled for any pay and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which Ram Chandra had taken as loan from the State Government for the installation of the factory, will be paid from the profits of the factory and both will have an equal share in the profits and losses of the factory. Both of them agreed to these conditions and thereafter the partnership started and prior to this, Ram Chandra was the sole proprietor of this firm. On the Southern side of this land, there was a land of Modu Balai, which Ram Chandra had purchased vide Ex. PW 61. Some part of this land was included in the factory premises and the remaining part of the land was sold by Ram Chandra to Nand Lal R/o Nawa. Nand Lal installed a factory in this land and thereafter sold this factory to Sri Ram Agrawal. He has admitted that he does not know the measurements of the two rooms which were situated on this land prior to its purchase by the plaintiff. He has admitted that he does not remember the measurements of inner rooms, water pond (Hauj) and the safety pills and it took eleven months in the completion of the construction work. At the time when the talks regarding the partnership took place, no machine was installed in this factory. He has further stated that the factory was installed by Ram Chandra on the land purchased by him from Sadul Singh.PW 9 Ramjani has stated that the factory of Ram Chandra is situated on the land which Ram Chandra purchased from Sadul Singh. The factory is adjacent to his own factory and the Railway line passes in between his factory and the factory of Ram Chandra. Sadul Singh used to live on this land. The factory was constructed over six seven Bighas of the land. He has admitted that he has not seen the Patta in favour of Sadul Singh, which land belonged to Thakur. He has, also, showed his ignorance regarding the amount for which the land was sold. He has, also, stated that the construction of the factory on the land in question was made by Ram Chandra.PW 10 Raghunath has stated that his masons constructed the water ponds, safety pills etc. This work was got done by Ram Chandra and Jugal Kishore Chandak and the payment was made by Jugal Kishore Chandak on the instruction of Ram Chandra. This work was got done by Ram Chandra and Jugal Kishore Chandak and the payment was made by Jugal Kishore Chandak on the instruction of Ram Chandra. He has, also, stated that he, also, constructed the house of Asha Ram. The materials used to come from the factory site. Whenever Asha Ram used to come from Jaipur, he used to come to the factory, also.PW 11 Nand Lal has stated that he purchased the land from the plaintiff Ram Chandra and constructed a factory over that land, on the Southern side of the plaintiff's factory. Later on he sold his factory to Ram Niwas and at the time when he purchased the land, plaintiff Ram Chandra gave him the sale deed Ex.PW 6.1, which he handed over to Man Singh for producing the same in the Court. He, however, showed his ignorance regarding the land on which the plaintiff constructed the factory. He has stated that he purchased the land about 14-15 years before, over which he has constructed the factory. At the time when he purchased the land, Ram Chandra's factory was already in the working condition.PW 12 Bankey Lal was the Factory and Boiler Inspector, Jodhpur, who, on May 18, 1964, inspected the Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana, and at the time of inspection, Bhanwar Lal was present there, who informed him that Ram Chandra Solanki Madan Lal and Bhanwar Lal were the partners of this factory. An inspection note was prepared by him, which is Ex.30. On 25.6.1966, he again inspected this factory and prepared the inspection note. He filed a complaint for the incident of 18.5.1964, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 15.7.1964, against Madan Lal, Ram Chandra and Bhanwar Lal. Accused Madan Lal and Bhanwar Lal admitted their guilt and they were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- each, whereas accused Ram Chandra was acquitted because he made an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that he was not the Manager of the factory and was, therefore, acquitted by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.PW 13 Bagh Singh was examined in rebuttal. He has stated that he was the Ex Jagirdar of half of Makrana and knew Sadul Singh. Sadul Singh was in his employment and in consideration of that, his grandfather gave some land to Sadul Singh. He has stated that he was the Ex Jagirdar of half of Makrana and knew Sadul Singh. Sadul Singh was in his employment and in consideration of that, his grandfather gave some land to Sadul Singh. The land over which the factory is situated, was given by his grandfather to Sadul Singh. Sadul Singh used to reside over this land and had a hut over that land. The foundation stone of the factory was laid in the year 1958 on the day of Dashera. He has further stated that the entries regarding giving the land to Sadul Singh must have been entered in the Bahi of the Thikana, but as the Jagirdar of the Thikana has been changed, he, therefore, could not bring the Bahi. He has stated that the land was given to Sadul Singh in Samvat Year 1980. He has further stated that he does not know whether in the Settlement Record, the name of Sadul Singh has been substituted or not but the land was given to Sadul Singh and over which he was living, there is now a factory over that land.PW 14 Sardar Singh has stated that he worked in Asiatic Marble and Minerals Industries Private Limited, Makrana, for about 21/2 years and purchased a stamp in the name of Smt. Kesar and Sint, Rukmani for writing a partnership deed, on the asking of Asha Ram and Madan Lal, but no deed was executed in his presence. The foundation stone of this factory was laid down by Ram Chardra on the day of Dashera in the year 1958, at about 9.00 a.m. The land, over which the factory was constructed, was purchased by the plaintiff from Sadul Singh. Sadul Singh used to reside on this land and, also, used to store fodder there. Ram Chandra used to come in the factory and was supervising the engine and other machineries. He used to work under Madan Lal. Asha Ram, also, used to come in the factory. Asha Ram and Madan Lal used to say that they are partners in the factory. A Warrant of Attachment in the name of Ram Chandra was, also, served on the factory and one machinery was attached. Ram Chandra used to come off and on. He used to work under Madan Lal. Asha Ram, also, used to come in the factory. Asha Ram and Madan Lal used to say that they are partners in the factory. A Warrant of Attachment in the name of Ram Chandra was, also, served on the factory and one machinery was attached. Ram Chandra used to come off and on. He has further stated that the area under the factory is of about four Bighas and the factory is situated in Khasra No. 711.PW 15 Guman Singh has stated that he is the owner of Durga Marble Factory and there is a road in between his factory and the factory of the plaintiff. This factory was installed by Ram Chandra on the land, which he purchased from Sadul Singh. He, also, wanted to purchase this land from Sadul Singh and offered him Rs. 4500/- but Ram Chandra parchased this land for a consideration of Rs. 5000/-. Ram Chandra laid the foundation stone of this factory after Deepawali of 1958, and started the factory in the year 1959, while he started the factory in the year 1958.PW 16 Gulam Mustafa has stated that he (sic) Receiver of the factory in question for about 11/2 years since 1968, and took the charge of the factory with the aid of the police. He was, also, the Chairman of the Municipal Board, Makrana. The factory has been constructed on the land which the plaintiff Ram Chandra purchased from Sadul Singh. The land of the factory was within the municipal limits. At the time when the factory was started, a dispute regarding the payment of octroi arose and he called the Patta of the land from Sadul Singh and on that basis, the octroi was charged from Ram Chandra. The foundation stone of this factory was laid in the year 1958, on the day of Dashera. Ram Chandra got a loan in the month of March, 1959, and the foundation of the engine room was laid in the year 1959, and at that time Asha Ram was not the partner with Ram Chandra. The plaintiff thereafter purchased 41/2 Bighas of land from Sadul Singh. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had seen the Patta of Sadul Singh, which was for 41/2 Bighas with respect to Khasra No. 711. The plaintiff thereafter purchased 41/2 Bighas of land from Sadul Singh. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had seen the Patta of Sadul Singh, which was for 41/2 Bighas with respect to Khasra No. 711. He has proved Ex.P.28 the receipt regarding the payment of octroi duty which was received in his service tenure. 13. Apart from these sixteen witnesses, the plaintiff has placed on record thirty seven documents. Ex. 1 is the sale deed executed by Sadul Singh in favour of Ram Chandra. Ex. 2, Ex. 3, Ex.4, Ex. 13, Ex. 14, Ex.15 Ex. 23, Ex. 24 and Ex. 27 are the bills, by which the various items were purchased for the factory. Ex.5, 10,11,18,19,20,21 and Ex. 32 are the letters written by Asu Lal to Ram Chandra on various occasions while Ex.9 is the letter written by Ram Chandra to Badri Narain Mahajan to pay Rs. 4000/- to the Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Limited. Ex.17 is a letter of Bafna and Company, written to Ram Chandra. Ex.25 is the letter from a firm at Madras which was written to Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana, for the supply of marble and Ex.26 is a telegaram given from Madras by a party for the supply of two trucks of marble and Ex. 31 is the letter of Mustaq Mohammed. Ex. 6 is the Pass Book of Nagaur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Makrana Branch, Makrana. Ex.7 and Ex. 8 are the A.D. receipts showing the receipt of the notices sent by the plaintiff to Asha Ram and Madan Lal. Ex. 12 is the complaint filed under the Factories Act against Ram Chandra, Madan Lal and Bhanwar Lal. Ex.16 is a R.R., of Marwar Goods Transport Company, Mechinery Mart. Ex. 22 is the draft partnership deed. Ex. 28 is the octroi receipt and Ex. 29 is the attendance register. Ex. 30 is the inspection report of the Fectory and Boilers Inspector, namely, B.L. Agrawal, which was made in the presence of Bhanwar Lai, in which the owners of the factory were shown as Madan Lal and Deena Ram. At the time of inspection, the working hours of the factory were not displayed and, therefore, a challan was filed. Ex. 34 is the telegram given by Asu Lal to Ram Chandra and Ex. 35 is the report of the Receiver Gulam Mustafa. Ex. At the time of inspection, the working hours of the factory were not displayed and, therefore, a challan was filed. Ex. 34 is the telegram given by Asu Lal to Ram Chandra and Ex. 35 is the report of the Receiver Gulam Mustafa. Ex. 36 is the investory prepared by the Receiver Gulam Mustafa. 14. The defendant No. 1, in his defence, examined fourteen witnesses and placed reliance over twenty seven documents. DW 1 Mustaq has stated that he worked in the Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana, as a contractor in the year 1961, for cutting and grinding the marble. Cutting machine was installed in the factory in the year 1961. He worked in this factory upto 1966. Ram Chandra (Plaintiff) was a working partner and remained as a partner upto 1962. Thereafter defendant No. 2 Madan Lal was taken as the working partner. In the year 1962, when a complaint was made by him to Ram Chandra regarding the defect in the machine, Ram Chandra informed him that he had left the partnership in the month of August, 1962, and after that he did not come in the factory.DW 2 Paras Ram has stated that he was the engine driver in the factory from the very beginning and Ram Chandra was a partner in the factory to the extent of 4 Annas. The factory started in the year 1960 and he was called by Ram Chandra. At that time he was working with Mr. R.G. Bansal. He introduced him to Asha Ram for employing him as the engine driver and on the consent of Asha Ram, he was appointed in the factory as the engine driver. Later on, in the year 1960, when the engine went out of the order, he made a complaint to Ram Chandra and then Ram Chandra told that he had left the partnership.DW 3 Kishna Ram has stated that in the year 1959, in the last month, Asha Ram gave Rs. 2000/- to him to pay the same to Ram Chandra plaintiff as the amount was required for the construction of the factory. He paid that amount to Ram Chandra at Makrana and went to his village. When he paid that amount, the construction of the factory was in progress.DW 4 Magna Ram has stated that in the year 1959, at Jaipur, Asha Ram gave Rs. He paid that amount to Ram Chandra at Makrana and went to his village. When he paid that amount, the construction of the factory was in progress.DW 4 Magna Ram has stated that in the year 1959, at Jaipur, Asha Ram gave Rs. 1000/- to him to give the same to Ram Chandra as the work of the factory was in progress and the construction of the engine room and the water pond were to be undertaken. He took Rs. 1000/- to Makrana and handed them over to Ram Chandra and asked him to credit the amount in the name of Asha Ram. 15. DW 5 defendant Asha Ram has stated that the is the owner of the factory Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana. He purchased the land for the construction of this factory as well as the machineries which were installed in the factory. The whole of the capital was invested by him and Ram Chandra has not invested even a single paisa in the factory. Whatever amount was invested by Ram Chandra, he had withdrawn the same. He wanted to start some factory in the year 1958, but as he was a Government servant and was working in the Transport Department, therefore, for running the business, he required a man of confidence. He had good relations with Ram Chandra, who had, also, experience in the marble work. He had a talk with him. He, therefore, suggested him that he will make the investment and Ram Chandra will look after the factory and it was agreed that for being a 'working partner', he will be entitled to 4 Annas share in the profit and losses. It was, also, agreed that till his work will be found satisfactory he will remain as a partner, to which Ram Chandra agreed and, also, informed him that he has already applied for a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the State Government which amount he will invest in the factory and the remaining amount will be invested by Asha Ram and agreed in the partnership at 4 Annas share. He thereafter purchased 41/2 Bighas of agricultural land from Modu Balai for a consideration of Rs. 600/- and paid Rs. 200/- to Modu Balai through Ram Chandra, as he had already advanced Rs. 4000/- to Ram Chandra for the establishment of the factory. According to him, his mother had about Rs. He thereafter purchased 41/2 Bighas of agricultural land from Modu Balai for a consideration of Rs. 600/- and paid Rs. 200/- to Modu Balai through Ram Chandra, as he had already advanced Rs. 4000/- to Ram Chandra for the establishment of the factory. According to him, his mother had about Rs. 12,000/ and his sister-in-law had about Rs. 8000/- and apart from it, he himself had Rs. 16,000/- with him. He took Rs. 26,000/- from his friend and invested about Rs. 62,000/- in this factory. The factory was installed by him on the land purchased from Modu Balai which is bearing Khasra No. 711. He has stated that this factory is not constructed on the land purchased from Sadul Singh by the plaintiff Ram Chandra, but is constructed over the land which he himself purchased from Modu Balai. He laid the foundation stone of this factory on Dashera day of 1958, and asked Ram Chandra (plaintiff) to start construction over this land. In June, 1958, he paid Rs. 4000/- to Ram Chandra and thereafter time to time' he made necessary payment to him for the construction of the factory. The books of accounts of the firm/factory were started with effect from 20.10.1958. A Rokad was also maintained. Jugal Kishore Chandak, the Munim, was also employed by Ram Chandra. The building of the factory was constructed under the supervision of Ram Chandra on daily wages basis. The building of the factory was completed in the month of September, 1959, and by that time he had paid Rs. 10,100/- to Ram Chandra. Upto September, 1959, whatever amount was given by him to the plaintiff, it was not credited in his account in the Rokad Bahi. This was revealed on the inspection of the account books. On enquiry why the amount has not been credited in his account, Ram Chandra told that he wanted to enquire from him in whose name the amount was to be deposited in the factory and, therefore, he made the entries in his own name and assured him that the amount will, now, be credited in his name. Ram Chandra thereafter got the entries A to B made in Ex.A. l at page No. 24 by Jugal Kishore in his name after debiting that amount from his own account. He denied that this entry was fictitiously made by him in collusion with Jugal Kishore. Ram Chandra thereafter got the entries A to B made in Ex.A. l at page No. 24 by Jugal Kishore in his name after debiting that amount from his own account. He denied that this entry was fictitiously made by him in collusion with Jugal Kishore. He further stated that he placed orders for the purchase of machineries vide Ex.A. 18 and the bill of the machine is Ex.A. 19. He made the payment of Rs. 12,168.75p. and took delivery of the machine of 9.2.60 at Jodhpur. He, also, paid the price of the engine and its accessories amounting to Rs. 18,000/- vide bills Ex.A. 20 and Ex.A. 21,.the two receipts of the amount. He paid this amount from his own pocket. The machines and the engine were installed in the factory in the month of October, 1960, and by that time, the plaintiff had invested only Rs. 6000/-. In October, 1960, Bhanwar Lal was appointed as the Munim by the plaintiff with his consent and got the Rokad Bahi prepared upto October, 1960.Upto October, 1960, whatever amount was spent in the construction of the factory, was spent by him and Ram Chandra had invested only Rs. 6000/-, out of the loan which he had taken from the State Government which amount, too, was withdrawn by him later on. In the year 1961, two more machines were got prepared by him from Ghaziabad. The plaintiff was not working properly and was mis-managing the affairs of the factory and, therefore, he was removed from the partnership in year 1962, and by that time he had already withdrawn his amount. After removing the plaintiff from the partnership, he took Madan Lal (defendant No. 2) as the partner for the management of the factory. He was inducted as a partner in the month of September, 1962, with a share of 25% in the profits, only. He was not to contribute towards the losses sustained by the factory. He therefore sent Madan Lal alongwith Rs. 7000/- to Gaziabad to bring these two machines, which he got prepared earlier. He was inducted as a partner in the month of September, 1962, with a share of 25% in the profits, only. He was not to contribute towards the losses sustained by the factory. He therefore sent Madan Lal alongwith Rs. 7000/- to Gaziabad to bring these two machines, which he got prepared earlier. When six machines were installed in the factory and the factory started earning profits then the plaintiff approached him and raped a quarrel, upon which two mediators, viz, Madan Lal (defendant No. 2) and Ram Vallabh were appoined and they asked the defendant No. 1 that though the plaintiff is not entitled for any amount but Rs. 17,000/- may be paid to him as the compensation for ousting him from the partnership. Though the amount was highly excessive, but the defendant No.1 agreed to this. He asked Madan Lal to make payment of Rs. 17,000/- to Ram Chandra, Madan Lal cleared the Government loan of the plaintiff and deposited Rs. 62,00/- towards that loan. He has further stated that from 1.2.60 to 2.11.62, he had invested Rs. 68,230/- which is clear from the account Ex-A.4.2. and including the loan taken by him the total investment made by him was Rs. 83,634/-, which is clear from the accounts Ex.A.5.1. In the cross-examination he stated that he had no paper in writing or the sale deed with respect to the purchase of the land from Modu Balai. The factory of Govind Swami is situated towards the East of this factory. He has, also, stated that whether the land of this factory is 160 x 170 hands or not, he does not recollect. He, also, showed his ignorance regarding the purchase of the land by the plaintiff from Modu Balai and then selling it to Nand Lal. He has stated that on the Northern side of this factory, there is a way which leads to village Borawar. He has further stated that the land, which he purchased from Modu Balai, is square in shape. He has admitted that he himself did not make the payment of the price of the land to Modu Balai and got the payment made through Ram Chandra plaintiff. Rs. 200/- were paid at the time when the measurements were taken and the possession of the land was taken and Rs. 400/- were paid through Ram Chandra later on. He has admitted that he himself did not make the payment of the price of the land to Modu Balai and got the payment made through Ram Chandra plaintiff. Rs. 200/- were paid at the time when the measurements were taken and the possession of the land was taken and Rs. 400/- were paid through Ram Chandra later on. Entry regarding the payment of this amount to Modu Balai in Ex.A.I is at serial No. 23, which is in the name of Ram Chandra. He has, also, stated that he does not remember the name of he mason who laid the foundation stone of this factory but he was some mohammedan and the Pooja ceremony was performed by Pandit Purshottam and not by Gopi Kishan. He has admitted that he for the first time saw the entry regarding the amount of Rs. 10,100/- in his name in Ex.A. I in the month of October, 1959. He has, also, admitted that he did not perform the Poojan of Deepawali of 1958, in this factory. He, also, admitted that he did not obtain any receipt of the money which he paid to Ram Chandra from his own pocket. He has, also, admitted that he sent the draft of the partnership deed in the year 1962. He denied that the share of the plaintiff and that of himself was equal in the partnership business. He, also, denied that Rokad of the factory was changed on Deepawali of 1958.DW 6 Devi Singh was the Tehsildar, Parbatsar, who has stated that with respect to Khasra No. 711, a case under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was instituted by Naib Tehsildar, Makrana, against Asha Ram.DW 7 Bhanwar Lal has stated that he was appointed as the Munim on 1.10.1960, in the Asiatic Marble and Minerals Industries Private Limited, Makrana, by Ram Chandra and Asha Ram. On the day when he was appointed, the current account books were handed over to him and some loose papers were given by Ram Chandra and he made entries on the basis of those loose papers in the Bahi Ex.A.1 and the Rokad Bahi Ex.A.2. The Rokad Bahi Ex.A. I was written upto Serial Number 25. On the day when he was appointed, the current account books were handed over to him and some loose papers were given by Ram Chandra and he made entries on the basis of those loose papers in the Bahi Ex.A.1 and the Rokad Bahi Ex.A.2. The Rokad Bahi Ex.A. I was written upto Serial Number 25. He prepared the accounts for the period from 1.10.58 to 31.10.60, on the basis of the loose papers given to him by Ram Chandra and showed the account to them after preparing the same. He, also, prepared the expenses accounts of the firm in Ex.A.2 from 2.10.58, on the basis of the loose papers given by Ram Chandra to him. On Deepawali, Rokad and Khata Bahies were, also, opened. He has, also, stated that the plaintiff was turned out from this factory/firm in the year 1965, after the payment of Rs. 17,000/- and at the instance of Madan Lai, he made entry about this and showed it in the year 1962. Later on he made cross entry about it. He has, also, stated that he kept the account books upto the date till he worked in the factory.DW 8 Murlidhar has stated that he used to work as a typist in the campus of the Courts located at Jodhpur. He knows Asha Ram and he typed Ex.22, which is incomplete. This Ex.22 was typed on the instructions of Asha Ram.DW 9 Kanhaiya Lal has stated that in the year 1965, two-three days before Holi, he went to Makrana alongwith Asha Ram Chand Mal was, also, with him. A dispute between Asha Ram and Ram Chandra was settled for Rs. 17,000/- and the settlement was agreed to by both the parties.DW 10 Govind Lal has stated that he is the owner of Kamal Marble Factory, Makrana, which is situated in Khasra No. 711. He purchased this land from Modu Balai. Asiatic Marble Factory is on the Western side of his factory, which is, also, situated en the land purchased from Modu Balai. On the land purchased from Modu Balai, there are nine marble factories and the cases under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act are pending against him and other persons. He does not remember who purchased the land for Asiatic Marble Factory. On the land purchased from Modu Balai, there are nine marble factories and the cases under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act are pending against him and other persons. He does not remember who purchased the land for Asiatic Marble Factory. He further stated that he went alongwith Asha Ram in the year 1959, and purchased two machines from Rajasthan Industries, Jodhpur. He has, also, stated that the work of the construction of the Asiatic Marble Factory started much earlier to the construction work of his factory started. 16. DW 11 Kalyan Mal has stated that he knows Asiatic Marble and Minerals Industries, Makarana. He got the cutting of the marble done through this factory. He advanced a loan for installing two machines in this factory to Asu Lal and Madan Lal and after taking the loan Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 26,000/- they purchased two machines. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 26,000/- were adjusted against the work done by the factory for the cutting of marble for him. At the time when they advanced the loan, Ram Chandra was not working in the factory. No interest was agreed on this loan, but a concession was given @ 4 Annas per square feet in sawing and cutting of the stones and the amount was adjusted within 11/2 years as the change for cutting and sawing the stones came to about Rs. 20,000/- or Rs. 22,000/-.DW 12 Munshi Bhisti has stated that he used to pour water in the Asiatic Marble Factory since its inception and continued upto 1968. Initially Ram Chandra used to make payment and afterwards, Kishan the brother-in-law of Asha Ram used to make payment. After the induction of Madan Lal as the partner in the firm, Ram Chandra did not make any payment to him and Rs. 700/- are still outstanding against the factory.DW 13 Kumbha Ram has stated that he knows Ram Chandra and Asha Ram. He installed a factory in Makrana in the partnership with Prabhu Ram about fifteen to twenty years before. He installed the factory on the land purchased from Modu Balai. Ram Chandra and Asha Ram, also, installed the factory on the Eastern side of his factory, but he does not know, from whom they purchased this land. He has further stated that Ram Chandra and Govind started the factory almost at the same time. He installed the factory on the land purchased from Modu Balai. Ram Chandra and Asha Ram, also, installed the factory on the Eastern side of his factory, but he does not know, from whom they purchased this land. He has further stated that Ram Chandra and Govind started the factory almost at the same time. Asha Ram and Ram Chandra both were the partners in the factory since the start of the factory. Asha Ram laid the foundation stone. No partnership agreement was entered in his presence. 17. DW 14 Sangram has stated that he is posted as Patwari in Makrana since 29.10.74 and has brought the Jamabandies of the Samvat Years 2022 to 2025, and the Girdawaries of Samvat Years 2016 to 2031. In the original register of Girdawaries, the land in question has been shown in the Khatedari of Modu Balai in the Samvat Year 2014 to 2017 with respect to Khasra No. 711. He prepared the site plan Ex.A.I/DW 14. In this site plan, Khasra No. 711 is marked as A,B,C,D, and E. In the site plan Ex.A.I/DW 14, at serial number 4, the factory has been shown as that of Asha Ram. In Khasra No. 711, Sadul Singh has not been shown as the Khatedar in the original record from Samvat Years 2018 to 2021. He has further stated that in the Samvat Years 2016 and 2017,41/2 Bighas of land of the company has been shown in the name of Ram Chandra, which is entered in the columns No. 31,32,39 and 40. He has further stated that in the Girdawaries of Samvat Years 2018 to 2021, in column No. 6, the name of Ram Chandra has been shown and in the Samvat Years 2018 to 2020, four Bighas of the land have been shown as Ram Chandra's company and in column No. 39 and 40, only the name of the company/factory has been shown. In the Samvat Year 2022, the company has been shown installed in four Bighas and in column No. 6, the name of Ram Chandra has been shown. In Samvat Years 2023 and 2024, four Bighas land has been shown in the name of the company. He has further stated that Asha Ram's name finds place after Samvat Year 2026. In the Samvat Year 2022, the company has been shown installed in four Bighas and in column No. 6, the name of Ram Chandra has been shown. In Samvat Years 2023 and 2024, four Bighas land has been shown in the name of the company. He has further stated that Asha Ram's name finds place after Samvat Year 2026. He has further stated that Ex.A.1/DW 14-the site plan was prepared on the asking of Asha Ram and the name of Asha Ram in column Nos. 4 and 5 has not been written on the asking of Asha Ram but because of the fact that as per the Girdawar's report, the factory is run by Asha Ram. He has further stated that as per the Revenue Record, Sadul Singh had no land in his name. 18. Apart from these fourteen witnesses, the defendant No. 1 placed reliance over twenty-seven documents. Ex.A.1/DW 14 is the Naksha Moka of Khasra No. 711 prepared by DW 14 Sangram. Ex.A.2 to Ex.A 16 are the various entries in the account books. Ex.A 17 is the judgment dated 18.12.68 passed by the Collector, Nagaur, by which it was decided that the Patta of Sadul Singh was not signed by the then Thakur and, therefore, it does not confer any right in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A. 18, Ex.A. 19, Ex.A. 19-A, Ex.A.20, Ex.A.21, Ex.A.22 and Ex.A.23 are the bills of the machines, engine etc., which were purchased by the defendant No.. I for installing them in the factory. Ex.A. 24 is the bill for Rs. 30/- in the name of the Asha Ram for the printing of the letter-pads of the factory. Ex.A.25 is the possession report by the Receiver Mr. R.R. Chacha. Ex.A.26 is the letter of Bafna & Company, Madras, making a complaint regarding non-payment of Rs. 1000/- by Ram Chandra. Ex.A. 27 is the application of Ram Chandra made by him before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbatsar, stating therein that he had no control over the factory and the challan has been wrongly filed against him. Ex.A.28 is the Khasra Girdawari of Khasra No. 711. Defendant No. 2 Madan Lai, also, appeared in the witness-box, but he did not produce any document in support of his case. Ex.A.28 is the Khasra Girdawari of Khasra No. 711. Defendant No. 2 Madan Lai, also, appeared in the witness-box, but he did not produce any document in support of his case. D. 2/DW 1 Madan Lal has stated that he is a partner in Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana, who was inducted as a partner in the month of September, 1962. Ram Chandra and Asha Ram alias Asu Lai, both, took him as a partner and settled the terms and conditions of the partnership. The condition that was agreed between the parties was that he will work as a 'working partner' and will not get any pay for that but will be entitled for 1/4 share in the gross profit of the factory and whatever amount will be deposited by him, will carry an interest at the rate of 1% per month. He was inducted in the partnership to get 1/4 share in the profits including the Goodwill of the factory and he was not to subscribe towards the losses of the factory. Losses were to be shared by Ram Chandra and Asu Lal alias Asha Ram equally. He invested Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- in the factory. After his joining the factory, four cutting machines, one Laith Machine were purchased and boundary walls of the factory and other rooms etc. w ere constructed and regular accounts were maintained. In his account, in the year 1967, Rs. 25,347/- were standing to his credit. In this amount, the interest accrued upto 1967, was ready added and the remaining amount of the interest was to be added/paid. After the appointment of the Receiver, the accounts remained with Asha Ram and the amount was deposited by Asha Ram in the Court. The Munim, who used to keep and maintain the accounts, used to give annual accounts to the partner of the factory including himself. He has stated that probably he was inducted as a partner in the end of September or in the early days of October. He has, also, stated that whatever terms and conditions were agreed, in the presence of Asu Lal and Ram Chandra and whatever amount he had spent, the amount was spent for the smooth running of the factory and whatever amount has been withdrawn by him, have been shown in the account books. He has, also, stated that whatever terms and conditions were agreed, in the presence of Asu Lal and Ram Chandra and whatever amount he had spent, the amount was spent for the smooth running of the factory and whatever amount has been withdrawn by him, have been shown in the account books. The account books were maintained by the Munim, who was working under his supervision. He has, also, stated that he deposited Rs. 6000/- against the outstanding amount of Ram Chandra to release the machines from the attachment and this was done on the request of Ram Chandra. 19. The main controversy in the present case, which requires consideration is: whether the disputed land, over which the factory has been installed, was purchased by the plaintiff Ram Chandra from Sadul S ingh who constructed the factory and started working as the sole proprietor in the name and style of "Asiatic Marble and Minerals Industries Private Limited, Makrana" or the defendant No.1 (appellant) Asha Ram purchased the land from Modu Balai and installed the factory in the name of Asiatic Marble and Minerals Industries Private Limited, Makrana, on 22.10.58, purchased the machineries etc. after taking the plaintiff Ram Chandra as partner for 4 Annas share? The learned Trial Court framed two issues, i.e., Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 4, in this regard, and after trial held that it was the plaintiff Ram Chandra who had purchased the land from Sadul Singh and constructed the factory over the plot, but the machineries and engine etc. were purchased by the defendant No. 1 and the factory was started in the month of October, 1960. The learned Trial Court further observed that it is not proved that the defendant No. 1 had purchased the land for the construction of the factory from Modu Balai and constructed the factory over it. The learned Trial Court, also, held that the partnership did not commence on 22.10.1958, and the defendant No. 1 did not take the plaintiff as a partner only to the extent of 4 Annas share, but the defendant No. 1 was taken as a partner in the partnership firm Asiatic Marble and Minerals Industries Private Limited, Makrana, on Deepawali of 1960. The learned Trial Court, while deciding these two issues (issues No.I and 4) observed that the factory has been installed over the land which was purchased by the plaintiff Ram Chandra from Sadul Singh. In coming to this conclusion, he placed reliance over the sale deed Ex.1. The learned Trial Court further observed that the execution of the sale deed Ex.l by Sadul Singh in favour of PW 2 Ram Chandra stands proved from the evidence of PW 4 Dadhimati Prasad the scribe of the document Ex.1 and PW 3 Ooziran Singh the attesting witness. According to the Trial Court, the factory was constructed at the place where Sadul Singh used to reside, which stands corroborated from the statements of PW 3 Ooziran Singh, PW 5 Jumna, PW 6 Man Singh, PW 7 Iddu, PW 8 Gopi Kishan, PW 9 Ramjani, PW 14 Sardar Singh and PW 16 Gulam Mustafa. The Trial Court, also, observed that there is no reason why these witnesses would depose falsely to show that Sadul Singh was in possession over this land. The Trial Court, also, observed that had Sadul Singh been not in possession over the land for so many years, Modu Balai or his legal representatives would have definitely challenged the sale of this land by Sadul Singh made in favour of the plaintiff Ram Chandra.I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court on this point and perused the relevant evidence including the statement of the witnesses produced by both the parties.PW 1 Dau Lal was the Sub Registrar, Parbatsar, before whom the sale deed Ex .1 was produced and who registered the same. PW 2 Ram Chandra, PW3 Ooziran Singh and PW 4 Dadhimati Prasad proved the sale deed Ex. 1. From the evidence of all these four witnesses, the execution of the sale deed Ex. 1 stands proved. The question which, therefore, requires consideration is: whether this sale deed Ex.1 relates to this very land, over which the factory has been constructed, or it relates to some other land, which might have been purchased by the plaintiff? 1. From the evidence of all these four witnesses, the execution of the sale deed Ex. 1 stands proved. The question which, therefore, requires consideration is: whether this sale deed Ex.1 relates to this very land, over which the factory has been constructed, or it relates to some other land, which might have been purchased by the plaintiff? The plaintiff has produced PW 3 Ooziran Singh, PW 5 Jumna, PW 6 Man Singh, PW 7 Iddu, PW 8 Gopi Kishan, PW 13 Bagh Singh, PW 14 Sardar Singh and PW 16 Gulam Mustafa to show that the factory was constructed on the land which was earlier in possession of Sadul Singh and which was purchased by the plaintiff from Sadul Singh. The statement of all these witnesses are identical on the point regarding the possession of the land by Sadul Singh and the construction of the factory over this plot of land. They have stated before the Trial Court that this factory was constructed on the land purchased by the plaintiff from Sadul Singh and at the time when the land was purchased by the plaintiff, there were two huts over the land which were in the dilapidated condition where Sadul Singh used to reside and there was one cote (Bara) where he used to put the fodder and tie the castles. Though these witnesses have stated that there were two huts in the dilapidated condition where Sadul Singh used to reside and one Bara where he used to put the fodder and tie the cattle, but the document Ex.1 shows that the plot in question did not contain any construction over it and it was a plain and vacant land. This document further shows that the possession over this plot was taken on the day of the execution of the document, i.e., on 14.2.1959, and not earlier to that. 20. The case of the plaintiff, on the other hand, is that though the sale deed was executed on 14.2.59, but the possession over the plot was taken in the month of September, 1958, when the deal was finally settled and the agreement on a plain paper was written and, therefore, the foundation stone was laid on 20.10.58. This case of the plaintiff is in contradiction with the document Ex.1. This case of the plaintiff is in contradiction with the document Ex.1. In the plaint, the plaintiff stated that he purchased the disputed land from Sadul Singh through a registered sale deed on 8.2.59, but in the rejoinder to the written statement, the plaintiff changed the version and stated that he took the possession over the land from Sadul Singh in November, 1958, and laid down the foundation stone on 15.11.58. In the statement before the Trial Court, he again changed his version and stated that the talk regarding the purchase of the land was finalised in September, 1958, and a foundation was dug by Mangi Lal Haijan on 20.10.58, i.e., on the day of Dashera. The plaintiff has tried to shift his stand at every point of time and the evidence produced by the plaintiff is contrary to the facts mentioned in the sale deed Ex. 1. The evidence produced by the plaintiff regarding the purchase of the land from Sadul Singh and regarding the fact of tnaments on the plot in question, are contrary to Ex. l the sale deed and, therefore, the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff, which is contrary to the sale deed Ex. 1. (a written registered document), can neither be relied upon nor can it be given any weightage. There is one other aspect of the case. Though all these witnesses have stated that the land in question, over which the factory was constructed, was in the possession of Sadul Singh, from whom the plaintiff purchased the same, but that is, also, contrary to the Revenue Recused. The Kharsa Girdawari shows that Khasra No. 711 of Bheemjiwala, measuring 30 Bighas 18 Biswas as a Khalsa land and Modiya Balai as the Khatedar of this land. In the Khasra Girdawari of Samvat Year 2014, Modiya Balai has been shown as the Khudkasht Khatedar while in the Samvat Year 2015, though the Khatedar tenant has been shown as Modiya Balai but Khuda Bux Kalal has been shown as the cultivator. In the Khasra Girdawari of Samvat Year 2014, Modiya Balai has been shown as the Khudkasht Khatedar while in the Samvat Year 2015, though the Khatedar tenant has been shown as Modiya Balai but Khuda Bux Kalal has been shown as the cultivator. In Samvat Year 2016, Modiya Balai has been shown as the Khatedar of this 30 Bighas 18 Biswas of land but Khuda Bux has been shown as the Kashikar, while the company of the plaintiff has been shown in 41/2 Bighas of land, the company of Govind Das on 11/2 Bighas of land and Modiya Balai has been shown in possession of three Bighas of land and a Bara on four Bighas of land has been shown as that of Nanu S/ o Asan. Thereafter this 41/2 Bighas of land has been shown in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the land over which this factory has been constructed, was definitely 41/2 Bighas of land which was purchased from Modu Balai out of his 30 Bighas 18 Biswas of land situated in Khasra No. 711 of Bheemjiwala. The name of Sadul Singh does not find place in any of the revenue records and no document has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show the ownership of Sadul S ingh over this piece of land. The case of the plaintiff is that Sadul Singh was given land by the Ex Thakur of Makrana and an entry to this effect was made in a Bahi, but that Bahi has not been produced. A case under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act was instituted against the plaintiff by the Tehsildar of Makrana and in that case a stand was taken by the plaintiff that he purchased this land, but the Collector, Nagaur, vide his judgment dated 18.12.68 (Ex.A. 17) gave a finding that the Patta of Sadul Singh entered, in the Bahi, is not signed by Thakur Sahib and, therefore, treating the plaintiff Ram Chandra as trespasser, imposed a fine on the plaintiff. 21. 21. This order of the Collector, Nagaur, was challenged by the plaintiff before the Revenue Appellate Authority but before the Revenue Appellate Authority, this point was not raised by the plaintiff and an alternative plea was taken that the provisions of Section 90-A and Section 48 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are not retrospective in nature and, therefore, no penalty can be imposed and it is only on this legal and technical point that the judgment of the Collector, Nagaur, was set aside, but so far as the finding that the Patta is not signed by the Thakur is concerned, was not set aside and it was even not challenged. The plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show the ownership of Sadul Singh over the land in question where the factory is constructed. The fact, which stands proved from the record, is that the factory has been constructed over the land in Khasra No.711 which, earlier to Samvat Year 2016, was belonging to Modu Balai and was entered in the revenue records in his name and he was shown as the Khatedar of the land and the factory was not constructed over the plot which is allegedly purchased by the plaintiff vide sale deed Ex.l. The piece of the land which the plaintiff purchased, might have been purchased from Sadul Singh but it is not the land over which the factory is constructed. Even the particulars of the land given in Ex. 1 do not tally with the particulars of the land in dispute. Neither any Khasra Number has been given in the sale deed Ex.1 nor even the witnesses know the Khasra Number of the land which was sold by Sadul Singh. It is, also, not the case of the plaintiff that Sadul Singh encroached upon the land of Modu Balai. The Patta issued by the Thakur of Makrana in favour of Sadul Singh has not been produced. Even the alleged sale price of Rs. 5000/- appears to be excessive. The plaintiff himself has alleged that he purchased 31/2 Bighas of land vide Ex. PW 6/1 for a consideration of Rs. 600/-. If the price of 31/2 Bighas of land is about Rs. 600/- then nobody will give the price of the same type of land to the tune of Rs. 5000/-. 5000/- appears to be excessive. The plaintiff himself has alleged that he purchased 31/2 Bighas of land vide Ex. PW 6/1 for a consideration of Rs. 600/-. If the price of 31/2 Bighas of land is about Rs. 600/- then nobody will give the price of the same type of land to the tune of Rs. 5000/-. The learned Trial Court, while discussing the evidence on this point, did not properly consider the effect of the document Ex.1 as well as the revenue records which do not contain the name of Sadul Singh.as the Khatedar tenant or cultivator or in possession over the land. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court deserves to be set aside and it is held that the land, over which the factory has been constructed, did not belong to Sadul Singh, rather it belonged to Modu Balai, from whom the land was purchased for the construction of the factory. 22. The next question which requires consideration is: whether the defendant No.1 purchased the land in question from Modu Balai ? Defendant No. 1, in his statement before the Court as DW 5 has stated that he purchased the land in question from Modu Balai for a consideration of Rs. 600/- . The land, at the time when it was purchased, was an agricultural land and he purchased 41/2 Bighas of land from Modu Balai and one Govind Swami, also, purchased the land from Modu Balai, who also, installed a factory on that land. Before purchasing this land, he had already paid Rs. 4000/- to Ram Chandra for the construction of the factory and, therefore, he asked plaintiff Ram Chandra to pay Rs. 200/ to Modu Balai as the price of the land out of the amount already paid by him to the plaintiff. Ram Chandra paid the amount of Rs. 200/- to Modu Balai initially and later on, on his asking, paid the remaining amount of Rs. 400/- to Modu Balai. The Khasra Number of this land is 711 and Ex.A. 16 is the Khatoni of this land and after the purchase of the land, he asked Ram Chandra to get the factory constructed over this plot. No sale deed has been produced by the defendant No. Ito show this transaction. 400/- to Modu Balai. The Khasra Number of this land is 711 and Ex.A. 16 is the Khatoni of this land and after the purchase of the land, he asked Ram Chandra to get the factory constructed over this plot. No sale deed has been produced by the defendant No. Ito show this transaction. Though the defendant No. 1 has not been able to place on record any document executed by Modu Balai in favour of the defendant No. 1 to show the sale made in favour of the defendant No. 1 but the fact is (as is clear from the Revenue Record) that the land in question was purchased from Modu Balai and the factory has been installed on that land. Therefore, it appears that the land has been purchased by the firm from Modu Balai. Though it is not the case of either of the plaintiff of the defendant No. 1 but the facts on record show that neither of the parties, in their personal capacity, has purchased the land. The entry regarding the payment of Rs. 600/- to Modu Balai does find mention in the account books of the factory and it appears that the amount of Rs. 600/- was paid from the Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries Private Limited, Makrana, i.e., by the firm and not by any of the individuals. The defendant No. 1 has, therefore, failed to prove that he purchased the land, over which the factory has been installed.So far as the installation of the machineries and the engine is concerned, the learned Trial Court has discussed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that all the machineries and engine were purchased by the defendant No.1 by his own money and were installed by him in the factory. The learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence produced by both the parties in the right perspective and the finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference. The bills Ex.A. 19, Ex.A.20, Ex.A. 21, Ex.A.22 and Ex.A.23 conclusively show that all the machineries, which were installed in the factory, were purchased by the defendant No.1 Asu Lal. 23. The bills Ex.A. 19, Ex.A.20, Ex.A. 21, Ex.A.22 and Ex.A.23 conclusively show that all the machineries, which were installed in the factory, were purchased by the defendant No.1 Asu Lal. 23. The next point, which requires consideration is: who contributed and invested the money in the construction of the factory building whether it was the plaintiff who invested the whole amount or it was the defendant No. 1 who invested the whole amount? The case of the plaintiff is that he made the total investment in the construction of the factory. He had taken loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the State Government which he invested in raising the construction while the case of the defendant No. 1 is that he made the payment of Rs. 10,100/- on various dates to the plaintiff Ram Chandra for raising the construction. So far as the supervision of the construction work of the factory and the payment of the amount by the plaintiff are concerned, the same have not been disputed :)y the defendant No.1, also. According to the defendant No.1, as he was in the Government service, therefore, he was not in a position to look after the work of the factory and, therefore, he had a talk with the plaintiff, who and experience in the marble work and took him as a partner for 25% share in the profit and loss and the plaintiff had to work as the 'working partner'. The payment of Rs. 10,100/- on various dates by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff stands proved from the entries made at serial number 24 in the Copdi Rokad Bahi Ex.A.1. This entry was initially admitted by the plaintiff's Counsel in the presence of the plaintiff but later on he resiled from his statement and in the rejoinder, it was submitted by him that no amount was taken by him from the defendant No. 1. The defendant No.1, in his statement before the Court as DW. 5, has specifically stated that he paid Rs. 10,100/- on various dates to the plaintiff for the construction work in the factory but this amount was not credited in his account by the plaintiff and, therefore, in the month of October, 1959, when he saw the account books, he found the amount credited in the account of the plaintiff himself. 5, has specifically stated that he paid Rs. 10,100/- on various dates to the plaintiff for the construction work in the factory but this amount was not credited in his account by the plaintiff and, therefore, in the month of October, 1959, when he saw the account books, he found the amount credited in the account of the plaintiff himself. On enquiry, the plaintiff informed that he credited this amount in his own account because he was not knowing at that time as to in whose account this amount was to be credited and thereafter the plaintiff debited this amount in his own account and credited the same in the account of the defendant No. 1. This entry was made by the Munim Jugal Kishore working at that time. This entry was even admitted by the plaintiff in his statement, but he has stated that the entries Ex.A. 18 to Ex.A.24 at pages No. 26 and 27 of Chopdi are not correct. The learned Trial Court disbelieved this entry on the ground that Jugal Kishore Chandak has not been produced by the defendant No. 1. When the plaintiff himself has admitted that the entries are in the hand of Jugal Kishore Chandak then it was not incumbent on the defendant No.1 to have produced Jugal Kishore Chandak. The plaintiff even admitted these entries while making admission/denial of the documents. The admission in the present case was made by the Counsel for the plaintiff in the presence of the plaintiff after properly seeing the document/record. Merely by saying that the plaintiff had seen the record only at that time and therefore a wrong admission has been made, he cannot be permitted to resile from that admission unless he successfully withdraws and proves that it was erroneous. The account books were prepared under his supervision by Jugal Kishore Chandak and all the entries were made at his instance by Jugal Kishore Chandak. He was the person who was looking after the business of the factory and whatever the expenses were made, were made by him and were entered by Jugal Kishore in the account books. The defendant No.1 had no control over the account books at the time when these entries were made and, therefore, the admission of the entries by the plaintiff goes to show that the amount of Rs. 10,100/- was invested by the defendant No. 1 in this factory. The defendant No.1 had no control over the account books at the time when these entries were made and, therefore, the admission of the entries by the plaintiff goes to show that the amount of Rs. 10,100/- was invested by the defendant No. 1 in this factory. The defendant No. 1 has, also, produced DW 3 Kishna and DW 4 Magna, with whom he sent Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively, in the year 1959, for giving the same to the plaintiff Ram Chandra. DW 3 Kishna has stated that Rs. 2000/- were sent by Asha Ram with him to be paid to Ram Chandra as the money was required for the construction of the factory. 24. DW 4 Magna has stated that Rs. 1000/- were given to him by Asha Ram in the year 1959, for giving the same to Ram Chandra and after taking this amount from Asha Ram, he paid the same to Ram Chandra at Makrana. From the entry Ex.A. 20, made in the Chopdi and from the statement of DW 5 Asha Ram, D W 3 Kihsna and DW 4 Magna, it, therefore, stands proved that Rs. 10,100/- were sent by Asha Ram (defendant No. 1) between 22.10.58 to 30.9.59, to Ram Chandra. The plaintiff has, also, taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the State Government, which he, also, invested in the construction of the factory. This taking of loan by the plaintiff from the State Government and investing the same in the construction work of the factory, have not been denied by the defendant No.1. It, therefore, appears that in the purchase of the land as well as for the construction of the factory, both the parties made investments of their capital. The plaintiff invested a sum of Rs. 10,000/- while the defendant No.1, also, invested a sum of Rs. 10,100/-. Though it is not the case of either of the parties that the land was purchased by the partnership firm or the construction was made by the firm and their case is that they individually purchased the land and raised the construction and they individually are the owners of the factory, but the facts on record show that the joint investments were made and both the parties contributed in the purchase of the land and the construction of the factory building. 25. 25. The next question which requires consideration is when the partnership came into existence? According to the plaintiff, he purchased the land in September, 1958, laid down the foundation stone in October, 1958, raised construction over it and completed the building on 30.9.58, inducted the defendant No. 1 as the partner on Deepawali of 1960, and thereafter the machineries were installed and the factory started its work, while the case of the defendant No. 1 is that he agreed to take the plaintiff as the partner in the firm as he had the money but being a Government servant he was not in a position to start the factory, while the plaintiff had the experience in the marble business and, therefore, he took him as a partner on 25% share in the profit and loss, purchased the land from Modu Balai and asked the plaintiff to start the construction of the factory, thereafter the machines were purchased and the factory was started. Whatever amount was spent in the purchase of the land, in raising the construction and in purchasing of the machineries etc., all was invested by him and the plaintiff was only a working partner in the factory on 25% share in the profit and the loss. His further case is that he laid the foundation stone of the factory on 22.10.58. It is the case of both the parties that the foundation stone was laid on 22.10.58 and the building was completed on 30.9.59, and thereafter the machineries were purchased and installed in the factory. It is not the case of the defendant No.1 that he himself supervised the working of the construction. His case is that the work of construction was being supervised by Ram Chandra as the defendant No. 1 was a Government servant. The supervision of the construction work and the payment to the labourers and the Munim etc. by Ram Chandra, are, therefore, not of any consequence because the payment by Ram Chandra is admitted even by the defendant No. 1. Whether this amount was paid by Ram Chandra on his own behalf or on behalf of the defendant No.1, this is the relevant point for consideration. As I have held above that in the purchase of the land and raising the construction, both the parties contributed. Rs. 10,000/- were invested by the plaintiff while Rs. 10,000/- were invested by the defendant No.1. As I have held above that in the purchase of the land and raising the construction, both the parties contributed. Rs. 10,000/- were invested by the plaintiff while Rs. 10,000/- were invested by the defendant No.1. The learned Trial Court, after consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the defendant No. 1 was admitted into the partnership on Deepawali of 1960. The learned Trial Court has not properly considered the evidence on record and therefore, arrived at this wrong conclusion. The plaintiff has changed his version at several stages. In the plaint, he came with the case that he entered into a partnership with the defendant No. 1 in the year 1961, while in the rejoinder to the written statement, filed by the defendant No. 1, he stated that the partnership was entered on 1.10.59, and in the statement before the Court, he has stated that on Deepawali of 1960, he took Asha Ram (defendant No.1) as the partner in the firm. Ex.A. 18 dated 8.10.59, is a bill which is in the name of Deena Ram S/o Asha Ram, by which two saw machines were purchased for an amount of Rs. 11,808/- from Rajasthan Industries. Jodhpur. Ex.A.19 dated 9.2.60, is a bill in the name of Deena Ram S/o Asha Ram, by which a saw machine for a consideration of Rs. 12,160/- was purchased from Rajasthan Industries, Jodhpur. Ex.A. 19-A dated 6.9.60, is the bill for an amount of Rs. 13,001/- by which Ruston engine was purchased by Asha Ram for this factory. Ex.A. 20 dated 6.9.60, is a receipt showing the purchase of liner from Shakti Engineers, Barodara. Ex.A. 22 is the bill dated 17.7.60, for an amount of Rs. 4765/- by which Asha Ram purchased one Section Head Gynor and Piston alongwith Pully pump, pipes etc. from Shakti Engineers, Barodara. Ex.A.20 and Ex.A.21 are the two receipts by which the payments were made by the defendant No.1. Ex.A. 23 is a bill in the name of Asha Ram, by which certain materials were purchased by Asha Ram for the factory. Ex.A.24 is a bill cum cash memo dated 30.11.59, issued by National Printing Press, Jaipur, by which the letter pads of the factory were got printed by Asha Ram. Ex.A. 23 is a bill in the name of Asha Ram, by which certain materials were purchased by Asha Ram for the factory. Ex.A.24 is a bill cum cash memo dated 30.11.59, issued by National Printing Press, Jaipur, by which the letter pads of the factory were got printed by Asha Ram. The plaintiff, in his statement before the Court, has admitted the entries of the amounts of these bills in the Chopdi maintained by the Munim of the factory. 26. In the cross-examination he has, also, admitted that these machines were received in the factory in the month of February or March, 1960. If the defendant No. 1 would not have been a partner in the factory then these machines and engine would not have been brought by him in the factory. The plaintiff does not appear to be a reliable witness and he has tried to change his stand at every stage of the case. The defendant No. 1 on the other hand, has stated that after agreeing for the partnership, they started the business and for this purchased the land, started construction work and he paid the amount to the plaintiff for raising construction etc. The stand taken by the defendant No. 1 appears to be more probable. From the evidence on record, it stands proved that the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 came into existence even before the land was purchased. After the formation of the partnership, the land was purchased and the construction was made and both the partners put the amount in a common pool and the factory is the property of the partnership and it is during the subsistance of this partnership that the machineries were brought and installed in the factory. Though the amount was invested by the defendant No. 1 in the purchase of the machineries, engine etc., but as it was bought in the subsisting partnership and, therefore, they became the property of the firm. The learned Trial Court, therefore, wrongly decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. But so far as the issue No. 4 regarding the purchase of the land by the defendant No.1 and the construction of the factory by the defendant No.! are concerned, they have rightly been decided by the learned Trial Court. The findings on issue No.! But so far as the issue No. 4 regarding the purchase of the land by the defendant No.1 and the construction of the factory by the defendant No.! are concerned, they have rightly been decided by the learned Trial Court. The findings on issue No.! and isssue No. 2 arrived at by the learned Trial Court, are, therefore, set aside. So far as the finding on issue No. 4 is concerned, it is maintained. 27. Now, I take up issue No. 5. The learned Trial Court decided issue No. 5 against the defendant. While deciding the issue No. 5 the learned Trial Court observed that there is a variation between the statement of the defendant No.I and the written statement filed by him. He further observed that there is no evidence on record to support the case of the defendant No. 1 that he had any right to expel the plaintiff from the partnership firm. The learned Trial Court, also, did not believe the evidence produced by the defendant No.1 on this count. So far as the first part of this issue that the plaintiff retired from the partnership in the month of September, 1962, is concerned, apart from his own statement, he produced DW 2 Paras Ram and DW 1 Mustaq. DW 1 Mustaq has stated that he worked as a Contractor in the factory in the year 1961. Ram Chandra was, also, a partner in the factory. He used to supervise the machineries and whenever any machine went out of the order, he used to inform him. In the year 1962, when the machinery went out of the order in the month of August, 1962, he informed Ram Chandra, upon which Ram Chandra told him that he had relinquished the partnership. Similar is the statement of DW 2 Paras Ram. He has stated that he was an Engine driver in the factory. The factory was started by him. He was employed in the factory by Asha Ram, but he was introduced to Asha Ram by Ram Chandra. He saw Ram Chandra supervising the machineries etc. upto 1960. When the engine went out of the order, he went to Ram Chandra and asked him to get the engine repaired, upon which Ram Chandra informed him that he has retired from the partnership. This talk took place in the month of February or April, 1960. He saw Ram Chandra supervising the machineries etc. upto 1960. When the engine went out of the order, he went to Ram Chandra and asked him to get the engine repaired, upon which Ram Chandra informed him that he has retired from the partnership. This talk took place in the month of February or April, 1960. DW 2 Paras Ram has stated that the plaintiff relinquished the partnership in the year 1960, while DWI Mustaq has stated that the plaintiff has relinquished the partnership in the month of August, 1962, while the case of the defendant No. 1 is that the plaintiff was removed from the partnership in the month of September, 1962. The evidence of these witnesses does not inspire confidence on this point because the record shows that the plaintiff was even thereafter continued as a partner. Even D.2/DW 1 Madan Lal has stated that he was taken in the partnership both by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 Asha Ram. The evidence produced by both the parties, thus, clearly show that the plaintiff did not relinquish the partnership in the month of September, 1962. So far as the induction of the defendant No. 2 Madan Lal as a partner in the factory in the year 1962, is concerned, that has been admitted by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, both. The continuation of the plaintiff as a partner in the firm after September, 1962, further stands proved from the other evidence, also. A complaint was filed by PW 12 Banke Lai, the Factory Inspector, against the firm in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with respect to the inspection of the factory made by him on 18.5.64. He has stated that on 18.5.64, when he inspected the Asiatic Marble and Minerals Industries Private Limited, Makrana, at that time Bhanwar Lal was present in the factory who informed him that Ram Chandra, Madan Lal and Deena Ram are the partners in the factory. He made the inspection note which is Ex.A. 13 and filed a complaint against Madan Lai, Ram Chandra and Bhanwar Lal. Ex. 24 dated 19.4.63, is the bill by which some articles were purchased by Ram Chandra Solanki for the firm Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries, Makrana. He made the inspection note which is Ex.A. 13 and filed a complaint against Madan Lai, Ram Chandra and Bhanwar Lal. Ex. 24 dated 19.4.63, is the bill by which some articles were purchased by Ram Chandra Solanki for the firm Asiatic Marble and Mineral Industries, Makrana. Ex.32 dated 28.8.64, is a letter of Asu Lal written from Kota to Ram Chandra and Ex.14 dated 15.1.63 is a telegram given by Ram Chandra to Asu Lal. These documents clearly show that Ram Chandra continued as a partner in the firm even after September, 1962. The continuation of Ram Chandra as a partner in the firm after September, 1962, is further proved from the statement of defendant No. 2 Madan Lal. The learned Trial Court has, therefore rightly decided issue No. 5 against the defendant. The appreciation of the evidence made by the learned Trial Court in deciding issue No. 5 does not require any interference. 28. Now I take issues No. 3 and 7. The learned Trial Court has decided both these issues in favour of the plaintiff. The appreciation of the evidence made by the learned Trial Court in this regard does not require any interference. The learned Trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence on record rightly came to the conclusion that the partnership stood dissolved with effect from 17.1.1968 the day on which the notices were served upon both the defendants. The partnership in the present case was admittedly a partnership 'at will' which could have been dissolved by any of the partners under Section 43 of the Partnership Act by giving a notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to dissolve the firm. The notices in the present case were given by the plaintiff on 16.1.78, and these notices were received by the defendants on 17.1.68, as is clear from the A.D. receipts Ex.7 and Ex. 8. The case of the defendant No. 1 is that in the notice, it has been mentioned that the plaintiff served a notice on 16.3.65, also, dissolving the partnership but none of the defendants has stated neither before the Court nor they have admitted the receipt of any notice dated 16.3.65. It has not come on record that the notice dated 16.3.65 was ever served upon the defendants. It has not come on record that the notice dated 16.3.65 was ever served upon the defendants. But so far as the present notice is concerned, that was served on both the defendants on 17.3.68, and, therefore, the partnership stood dissolved with effect from 17.3.68, and not from any earlier date. Issues No. 3 and 7 were, thus, rightly decided by the learned Trial Court and the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court on these two issues do not require any interference. 29. The next point which requires consideration is : what was the share of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in the partnership firm at the time when the partnership started till the month of October, 1962 when the defendant No. 2 Madan Lal was inducted as a partner? Prima facie the inference of the law is that each of the partners is entitled to equal share in the joint profit and loss irrespective of the work performed and the amount invested by then unless there is a contract to the contrary. In the absence of an agreement in writing, equality in the sharing of the profit and the loss of the firm is a rule applicable as per rule 13(b) of the Partnership Act. Lindlay, in his Treaties on the Law of Partnership, has stated that "in the event of a dispute between the partners as to the amount of their share, such dispute, if it does not turn on the construction of a written document, must be decided like any other pure question of fact. If there is no evidence from which any satisfactory conclusion as to what was agreed, can be drawn, the shares of all the partners will be adjudged equal." It has, also, been laid down in Robinson v. Anderson (20 B.E.A.V. 98) that "prima facie inference of law is that the partners are entitled to an equal share of joint profit irrespective of the quantity of the work performed by each one where the contrary is alleged, the burden of proof lies on him who alleged it." There is no written agreement in the present case. The case of the plaintiff is that it was agreed that both the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 will share the profit equally and, also, contribute to the losses, if suffered, equally while the defendant No.1 has come with the case that he installed the factory and took the plaintiff as a partner on the basis of 75% and 25% share in the profit and the loss. The plaintiff, in the plaint, has come with the case that the partnership was entered into between him and the defendant No. 1 on the conditions that (i) the land and the building of this factory would remain the properties of the plaintiff, (ii) the defendant No.1 would pay back the loan which the plaintiff had taken from the State Government and till then the plaintiff will, also, remain the owner of the machineries and the engine installed in the factory, (iii) the partnership will be apartnership'at will' and the defendant No. 1 would provide the capital and the plaintiff will look after the working of the factory, and (iv) the plaintiff and the defendant No.l would have half share each in the profit and the loss of the partnership concerned. 30. Neither the factory has been installed on the land purchased by the plaintiff nor the factory was constructed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in view of the findings arrived at above, failed to prove his case regarding the terms of the agreement of the partnership and, therefore, from the evidence of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the share of the plaintiff in the partnership firm was 50% as per the term of the partnership agreement. The case of the defendant, on the other hand, is that he made the whole investment in the factory and took the plaintiff as a partner at the share of 75% as he was the working partner. The case of the defendant No. 1 was not found true as has been held above. As the statement of both the parties regarding the share of each of the partners is not found trustworthy and as the firm neither distributed the profit nor the losses in the earlier years, though partnership has been admitted. The case of the defendant No. 1 was not found true as has been held above. As the statement of both the parties regarding the share of each of the partners is not found trustworthy and as the firm neither distributed the profit nor the losses in the earlier years, though partnership has been admitted. Admittedly, there is no written agreement for the determination of the share of each of the partners in the partnership business and, therefore, though the investment of the capital are unequal in the present case, but in the absence of an agreement in writing, the rule of equality, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has to be applied. Though the defendant No.1 has invested more money but as the plaintiff himself has invested some money and, also, contributed his experience in the installation of the factory, therefore, a presumption is drawn under Section 13-B of the Act and it is held that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, both, are entitled to share equally the profits and to bear equally the losses sustained by the factory from the start of the factory till Deepawali of 1962, and after the Deepawali of 1962, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 will share 6 Annas each in the profit of the firm and will contribute to the loss suffered by the firm equally, i.e., 8 Annas each, while the defendant No. 2 Madan Lal would be entitled to 4 Annas share in the profit, only. 31. The next question which requires consideration is : whether the defendant No. 2 is, also, entitled for his share in the profit which accrued to the firm by way of appreciation of the value of the properties? Defendant No. 2 Madan Lal was taken in the partnership only to share 4 Annas in the profit of the firm and he was not to contribute in the losses suffered by the firm. He was a working partner. He did not contribute to the capital of the factory or in the installation of any machine etc. His share was only with respect to the profit of the firm. He was a working partner. He did not contribute to the capital of the factory or in the installation of any machine etc. His share was only with respect to the profit of the firm. The appreciation in the value of the properties of the firm cannot be said to be the 'profit' which has been earned by the factory and, therefore, the defendant No. 2 Madan Lal is not entitled for any profit which may accrue to the factory on account of appreciation of the value of the properties. His partnership came to an end as soon as the factory was put under the Receiver when the Receiver was appointed by the Court. The defendant No.2 is, therefore, not entitled for any profit, which may accrue on account of appreciation of the value of the property of the firm. 32. The respondent No.1 has, also, filed cross-objections. The case of the plaintiff is that the Court below has held that the land, over which the factory was constructed, was purchased by him and he constructed the factory over this land and, therefore, he was entitled to get the land and the factory premises and the learned Trial Court committed an error in treating the factory as the property of the partnership firm. As it has been held above, the land was purchased by the partnership firm and the construction was, also, raised by the partnership firm and it was not plaintiff who had purchased the land or constructed the factory and, therefore, the cross-objections, filled by the plaintiff, also, deserve to be dismissed.No other point has been argued by the learned Counsel for the parties nor the findings on other issues has been challenged by either of the parties and, therefore, it is not necessary to consider the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court on other issues. 33. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant, is partly allowed and the preliminary decree, passed by the learned Trial Court is modified only to this extent that the partnership came into existence in June 1958, i.e., earlier to October 22, 1958, but the remaining decree, passed by the learned Trial Court is maintained. The cross-objections, filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 , are, however, dismissed?Appeal allowed. *******