1. Upon the question of limitation we think that the case is governed by the decision in Ahinsa Bibi v. Abdul Kader Saheb 25 M.K 26. The cause of action arises from the partnership contract, and the right of each partner to have an account taken upon the dissolution of the firm. This right has descended to the plaintiffs as representatives of the deceased partner and all must join in a suit to enforce the right. If one representative instituted a suit for an account all the partners could insist upon the other representatives being joined so that the account should be taken once for all. We think that the plaintiffs as representatives of a deceased person are jointly entitled to institute a suit for an account within the meaning of Section 7 of the Limitation Act.
2. At the request of the learned Vakil for the appellant and in order to indicate that there has been no finding by the Court of what the partnership assets consists, the decree is amended by inserting the words for that purpose' before the words 'to ascertain (a) the correct value. '
3. We agree with the findings of the lower Court that there was no partnership between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant after the death of the deceased partner: but the plaintiffs will be entitled to an account of the profits made by the 1st defendant after the death of the partner by the use of his share of the assets in the business continued by him. The decree will be modified accordingly. The appeal and the memorandum of objections are both dismissed with costs.