2. For a partition of the said premises in such manner as to com pensate him for such damages. Who may Sue for Partition.-Every joint owner of property has a right to claim partition,* and all the joint owners must be brought into Court.† Partition How Made.-In suits for partition of property not paying revenue to Government, after ascertaining the respective interests of the parties, the Court should issue a commission to make the partition ;‡ and in the case of a decree for the partition of an estate paying revenue to Government, the decree must be carried into execution solely by the Collector.§ Raiyatwari holdings are not estates paying revenue to Government; and section 265 of the Civil Procedure Code applies only to permanently settled estates.¶ Partition in Bengal.-A suit for partition of revenue-paying land is not cognizable in the Civil Courts, though a suit to define plaintiff's share, and then to refer the partition to the Collector, is within jurisdiction ;** and the Civil Courts have jurisdiction if the plaintiff does not seek to have his joint liability for the Government revenue annulled.†† Partition in N.-W. P.-In this province the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in partition-suits is barred by Act XIX. of 1873 (s. 135), unless the correctness of the recorded shares, or of the right to share, is disputed; in which case they can determine such rights, but the partition must be made by the Collector. Partition in Oudh.-Under the Oudh Land-revenue Act, 1876, the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to declare the respective rights of joint owners,‡‡ but are, under section 95 of the Act, barred from making the partition. Partition in the Panjab.-In the Panjab the Civil Courts cannot take cognizance of suits for partition, unless the plaintiff disputes the correctness of the record-of-rights.§§ * Mitta Kunth Audhicarry v. Neerunjan Audhicarry, 14 B. L. R. 166; Srimati Padmamani Dasi v. Srimati Jagadamba Dasi, 6 B. L. R. 134; Shama Soonderee Dabia v. Jardine Skinner, 14 B. L. R. 167a. † Pahaladh Singh v. Mussamut Luchmunbutty, 12 W. R. 256. C. P. C., s. 396. § C. P. C., s. 265; Ramjoy Ghose v. Ram Runjun Chuckerbutty, 8 C. L. R. 367. || Sakharam Krishnaji v. Madan Krishnaji, I. L. R., 5 Bom. 232. ¶ Muttuvayyangar v. Kudalalagayyangar, I. L. R., 6 Mad. 97. **Ruttun Monee Dutt v. Brojo Mohun Dutt, 22 W. R. 11; Ayoodhia Lall v. Gumani, 2 C. L. R. 134; Chundernath Nundi v. Hur Narain Deb, I. L. R., 7 Cal. 153. ++ Chundernath Nundi v. Hur Narain, supra. ‡‡ See s. 69. §§ S. 65, Panjáb Land-revenue Act, 1871. Partition in Central Provinces. By clause 13 of section 152 of Act XVIII. of 1881, the Civil Courts in the Central Provinces cannot entertain a suit for partition, or for a declaration of right. Principle of Partition.—Mere inconvenience to other joint owners is not a sufficient obstacle to a partition of joint property.* If the property can be partitioned without destroying the intrinsic value of the whole property, or of the share, partition ought to be inade; but where partition cannot be made without destroying the intrinsic value of the property, then a money-compensation should be given instead of the share which would fall to the plaintiff by partition.† Registration.-A deed of partition of immoveable property between Hindus, if it does not create, at least declares an interest in immoveable property, and must therefore be registered ; but an instrument acknowledging that there had, in time past, been a partition between the brothers who signed it and the defendant, is not itself an instrument of partition, and does not require registration.§ Limitation. In suits by a person excluded from joint family property to enforce a right to share therein, twelve years from the time when the exclusion becomes known to the plaintiff.|| Form No. 337. FOR PARTITION-PART OWNER UNKNOWN-INCUMBRANCES. Plaintiff states: 1. That he has an interest to the extent of the one undivided fourth part in the following described premises (insert description), and he is now in possession thereof. 2. That the defendants C B and D B each own the one undivided fourth part of the said lands and premises, and are in possession of their said interests. 3. That one G H, who in his lifetime owned the one undivided fourth part of the said lands and premises, removed, several years ago, from this province to ; that he subsequently married, and had children, some of whom are now living, but their names and places of residence are wholly unknown to the plaintiff, and he cannot ascertain * Ram Pershad Narain Tewaree v. Court of Wards, 21 W. R. 152. Shankar Ramchandra v. Vishnu Anant, I. L. R., 1 Bom. 67. § Sakharam Krishnaji v. Madan Krishnaji, I, L. R., 5 Bom. 232. F. P.-35 the same, although he has made diligent inquiry for that purpose; that GH and his wife are now dead; and that said children, and the heis of any who may be dead, are collectively entitled to the undivided fourth which appertained to the said G H, and to which he would be entitled if now living. 4. That the defendant O P holds a mortgage upon the said interest of the said D B for Rs. payable on the day of per centum per annum. 5. That no other incumbrances or liens upon said property exist, and no person other than those above named, and the unknown heirs of G H, are interested in said property. Wherefore plaintiff prays: 1. That the amount due on the said mortgage held by the said OP on the interest of D B be ascertained. 2. That a partition of the said property be made according to the rights of the respective parties, or, if a partition cannot be had without material injury to those rights, then that said premises be sold, and the proceeds applied as follows: : (a.) To the payment of the general costs of this suit. (b.) To the payment of the costs of reference. (c.) That the residue be paid to the several owners in proportion to their respective interests, except that from the interest of the said DB there be first paid the amount due said O P der said mortgage; and that the interest belonging to the unknown heirs of the said G H be invested under the direction of the Court. 1. That he and the defendant have been for the space of last past carrying on business together at years within the juris diction of this Court, under certain articles of partnership in writing, signed by them respectively (or, under a verbal agreement between them). 2. That divers disputes and differences have arisen between the plaintiff and defendant as such partners, whereby it has become impossible to carry on the said business in partnership with advantage to the partners. 3. That plaintiff desires to have said partnership dissolved, and he is ready and willing to bear his share of the debts and obligations of the partnership according to the terms of the said articles (or agreement). Wherefore plaintiff prays the Court to decree the dissolution of the said partnership, and that the accounts of the said partnershiptrading may be taken by the Court, and the assets thereof realized, and that each party may be ordered to pay into Court any balance due from him upon such partnership-account, and that the debts and liabilities of the said partnership may be paid and discharged, and that the costs of the suit may be paid out of the partnership assets, and that any balance remaining of such assets, after such payment and discharge, and the payment of the said costs, may be divided between the plaintiff and defendant according to the terms of the said articles (or agreement), or that, if the said assets shall prove insufficient, he and the defendant may be ordered to contribute in such proportions as shall be just to a fund to be raised for the payment and discharge of such debts, liabilities, and costs, and to give such other relief as the Court may think fit. Plaintiff states: Form No. 339. THE SAME-ANOTHER FORM. 1. That on or about the day of, 18 at the plaintiff and defendant, under certain articles of partnership in writing (or under a verbal agreement between them), entered into and formed. a partnership for the purpose of (state nature of business), under the firm, name, and style of , and that they thereafter entered upon and continued to transact such partnership-business under their firm uame. 2. That since the commencement of the said partnership the defendant has wrongfully and without the assent of the plaintiff applied some of the money or receipts and profits of their said business to his own use, and by reason thereof has become indebted to said partnership, and impeded and injured the business thereof. 3. That the plaintiff has repeatedly requested the defendant to pay into said partnership the money so received by him and misappropriated as aforesaid, or to account to said firm therefor, but that the defendant has heretofore neglected and refused, aud still does neglect and refuse, so to account, and has threatened to continue to collect the partnership-debts, and appropriate the same to his own use. 1. That said partnership may be dissolved, and an accounting taken of all dealings and transactions thereof. 2. That the property of the firm be sold, that its assets be realized, that each party may be ordered to pay into Court any balance due from him to the firm, that the debts and liabilities may be paid, that the costs of this suit may be paid out of the partnership-assets, aud that the surplus (if any) be divided between the plaintiff and defendant according to their respective interests, or that, if the assets shall prove insufficient, plaintiff and defendant may be ordered to contribute in such proportious as shall be just to a fund to be raised for the payment and discharge of such debts, liabilities, and costs. Aud for such other relief as the Court may think fit. Partnership Defined.-Partnership is the relation which subsists between persons who have agreed to combine their property, labour, and skill, in some business, and to share the profits thereof between them." The business may be some particular transaction or adventure only, as where several persons join in the purchase of goods to be sold on joint account † Coownership is not sufficient to constitute a partnership. So when it was agreed that one person should purchase oil, and then divide it amongst himself and others, they paying their proportion of the price, it was held that the purchaser had bought as a principal, and not as an agent for the others, and that there was no partnership between them ;‡ and co-owners of a ship are not necessarily partners.§ * Contract Act, 1872, s. 239. + See illus. a, 8. 239. Cooper v. Eyre, 1 H. Bl. 37. § Hyder Ali v. Elahee Bux Maloom, I. L. R., 8 Cal. 1011. |