Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.
1. We think that both the courts below have taken an extremely narrow and technical view of this case. It appears that one Puran Chand had a lease of the grass farm at Agra. He took into partnership the plaintiff. They were to provide the capital between them and to share in the profits. Puran Chand died. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit, alleging that he had received certain money, and that Puran Chand and after his death his minor son received further money in connection with the joint enterprise. He alleged that there was a much larger sum received by Puran Chand's estate than he had received and that there would be a balance payable to him upon taking accounts. He accordingly asked that the accounts should be taken. The courts below have dismissed the suit, holding that it was not maintainable and that the minor could not be liable to render accounts, It seems to us (assuming the plaintiff's allegation to be true), that it would have been a very right and proper thing that the minor should have been ordered to render an account of the oneys received by Puran Chand or after his death by his estate espect of the enterprise. It is said that he (the plaintiff) ought to have claimed a definite sum. It is only after he knew what had been received by the other side and what expenses had been incurred that he would be in a position to name the sum that ought to be paid to him. The learned District Judge says that it will be most unfair that the plaintiff should escape rendering an account whilst the other side was ordered to render accounts. We cannot understand what there was to prevent the courts below, if it was objected on behalf of the minor defendant that it was not admitted that the plaintiff had only received the sum he alleged, to have directed that he also should furnish an account of what he had received and what he had expended. We think that the personal representative of a deceased partner is bound to give an account of what has been received on behalf of the partnership. Of course the personal representative will only be liable for the person he represents, to the extent of the assets he receives. What we think the court below ought to have done was to have passed the preliminary decree directing that each party should furnish an account of what has been received and what has been spent. These accounts after they have been filed can be accepted or objected to in the ordinary way and dealt with by the court. It may be objected that the minor is unable to give the accounts. The mere fact that he is personally unable to give the accounts will not absolve him from the obligation of getting the accounts prepared by the persons who were conversant with what took place and what money was received and spent and who were acting either for Puran Chand during his life or for the minor and the estate of Puran Chand after his death. We allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of both the courts below and remand the case to the court of first instance, through the lower appellate court, with directions to re-admit the suit in its original number and to proceed to deal with the same having regard to what we have said above. The court can deal with the case as near as possible on the lines of the provisions of order XX, rule 15, of the Code of Civil Procedure making a preliminary decree for an account. Costs here and heretofore will be costs in the cause.