Skip to content


T. Sami Aiyangar Vs. V. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.618
AppellantT. Sami Aiyangar
RespondentV. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Cases ReferredCuffe v. Murtagh
Excerpt:
partnership-deed, construction of - deed not fixing duration--stipulation that after the death of one of the partners his nephew should act in his stead--partnership at will. - .....should become and be accepted as a partner in respect of his share whom he should so present was held imported into the terms of a partnership at will springing out of a previous one which was for a fixed period of seven years and had expired before the testator's death. the partnership in the case before us is not stated to be for a fixed period and the provision referred to is not inconsistent with a partnership at will. we, therefore, set aside the subordinate judge's decision on this point.
Judgment:

1. In the deed of partnership itself there is no term expressly fixed for the duration of partnership, but the Subordinate Judge has held that as the deed contained a stipulation that after the plaintiff's death his nephew should act in his stead, the parties must be considered to have agreed to carry on the partnership during the life-time of the plaintiff, and that, therefore, the partnership was entered into for a fixed term under the Indian Contract Act. We are unable to agree with the lower Court. In Cox v. Willoughby (1880) 13 Ch. D. 863; 49 L.J. Ch. 237; 28 W.R. 503; 42 L.T. 125 it was held that a provision that on the decease of one of the partners the surviving partner should pay his executors a certain sum of money is inconsistent with a partnership at will. Similarly in Cuffe v. Murtagh 17 Ir. L.R. 411 it was decided that a provision that it should be competent to a partner to nominate and appoint any male person to take his share in the partnership at his decease and that every such person should become and be accepted as a partner in respect of his share whom he should so present was held imported into the terms of a partnership at will springing out of a previous one which was for a fixed period of seven years and had expired before the testator's death. The partnership in the case before us is not stated to be for a fixed period and the provision referred to is not inconsistent with a partnership at will. We, therefore, set aside the Subordinate Judge's decision on this point.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //