raised by the respondent in the plaint, it appears that in spite of incorporation of clause in the karar allowing him to continue the arrangement till the payment of partnership debt as agreed, there is nothing at all to show that he subsequently participated in the joint venture and continued the partnership arrangement after the date of karar. This is clear from his contention in the suit that though he tried to contact the appellant demanding discharge of payment of the amount specified in the karar, he always kept away playing hide and seek. There is further allegation that he was not allowed to participate in the yield as well as profits made in the cultivation. This is not denied by the appellant. Even the appellant has no case that respondent continued partnership arrangement after the karar day. His only contention is that his liability was only to the extent an amount of Rs.24,13,675/- invested by the respondent and agreement to pay Rs.35,00,000/was made by him tentatively on the assumption that the agricultural venture would have brought about substantial amount of income and profit.
