Bangalore District Court
Dr. Chandrashekar Bellidi vs ) Dr. Anju A. Agadi on 29 November, 2018
Govt. of Karnataka
C.R.P.67]
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
Form No.9 MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE
(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Present: Sri. B.NARAYANAPPA, M.A, LL.B.,
suits (R.P.91)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
OS NO. 27298 / 2009
(CCH-22)
Plaintiff/s:- Dr. Chandrashekar Bellidi,
Son of Sri Mallinath Belludi,
aged 36 years, R/at No.14, 7th cross,
Brindavan Nagar, Mattikere,
Bengaluru 560 054.
(By Sri N. Devaraj, Advocate)
V/s.
Defendant/s:- 1) Dr. Anju A. Agadi,
W/o. Dr. Anil B. Agadi,
Aged 38 years, R/at No.232/2,
12th cross, Wilson Garden,
Bangalore 560 027.
2) Sri Prasanna Venkatesh,
father name is not known to the plaintiff,
Aged 30 years, No.230, 12th cross,
Wilson Garden, Bengaluru 560 027.
(By Sri Pradeep Nayak, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 19.11.2009
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for declaration and
possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
Permanent Injunction
Date of the commencement of recording of the Evidence 02.06.2017
Date on which the Judgment was pronounced. 29.11.2018
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 9 0 10
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
.
2 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants seeking relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants, their agents or anybody claiming under them to handover the business run in the schedule property to the custody of the plaintiff and also grant permanent injunction restraining defendants, etc., from carrying on any business in the schedule property without due process of law and for costs.
2) Brief facts of plaintiff's case are that:
The 1st defendant being one of the director of M/s. Agadi Hospital, Wilson Garden, intended to open physiotherapists centre for her patients. The defendant was on lookout for a Doctor who is specialized in the said field. The plaintiff accepted the proposal of the 1st defendant to start the centre for physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation on partnership. They entered into partnership deed dated 1.9.2002 and opened M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation at the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and 1st defendant 3 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 successfully carried on the business till the middle of the year 2008. Due to misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, it was decided that 1st defendant would retire from the partnership and plaintiff shall continue the business with different name and in the mean time plaintiff shall get the accounts of the partnership firm drawn up to the date of retirement of the 1st defendant from the above said firm and credit balance if any due to the 1st defendant, shall pay within one year from the date of retirement of the first defendant and they entered deed of dissolution of partnership dated 3.7.2008. The plaintiff due to some personal family problems was held up in his native place and taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff the defendant trespassed into the schedule property and by joining hands with 2nd defendant started running the business under the name and style Survodaya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, without any manner of right, title or interest over the schedule property. The cause of action for the suit arose on 1.9.2002 when the plaintiff and 1st 4 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 defendant entered into partnership deed to carry on the business in the schedule property. Hence the suit.
3) After registration of this suit, suit summons were issued to defendants. In-response to the summons, defendants 1 and 2 appeared before this court through their counsel and filed their separate written-statements denying all the material averments made in the plaint. The brief averments made in the separate written statement / counter claim of defendant No.1 and also written statement filed by the 2nd defendant are:-
The 1st defendant is a doctor specialized in field of dentistry and she is also Director of Agadi Hospital. In the year 2002 the plaintiff who was working in Agadi Hospital as a physiotherapist approached management with an intention to start physiotherapy and rehabilitation centre. Accordingly they formed a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation in the year 2002 in the suit schedule property. The firm was allowed to operate for free. From 1.4.2005 5 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 onwards only a small token licence was paid. The firm's business was being run at a loss for the first few years. The plaintiff held only Rs.48,500/- as his share of capital and the 1st defendant held Rs.1,43,152/- as her share of capital. The plaintiff's share in the firm at this point was only about 25%. The plaintiff did not conduct the business diligently and was under financial difficulties. Hence 1st defendant decided to end the partnership and the plaintiff agreed to take over the business of the firm and a deed of dissolution of partnership entered into on 3.7.2008.
The defendant No.2 approached the Management of Agadi Hospitals, [which was the lessee and in possession of the property], seeking permission to use the premises for the purpose of running physiotherapy centre and on or about 28th January 2009 2nd defendant opened physiotherapy centre under the name and style 'Survodaya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation centre' under partnership with one Mr. Linorajesh. The 2nd defendant has no relationship of any nature with the plaintiff or the 1st defendant. 6 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009
In or about July 2009, the owner of the premises requested that the premises be returned to them and hence on 31st December 2009 Agadi Hospital returned possession of the premises to the owner. The 2nd defendant is no longer operating out of the suit schedule property and has shifted out.
The plaintiff completely abandoned the premises and disappeared. The 1st defendant neither responsible for the business of the firm after the dissolution, nor did she participate in any such business thereafter. Hence the question of mandatory injunction to hand over any business to the plaintiff does not arise. The plaintiff is not the owner of the premises and he is not a tenant in relation to the premises and he is not in possession of the premises. The plaintiff does not have any right to seek grant of any injunction in respect of the schedule property. There is no cause of action for the suit.
The 1st defendant is making the counter claim for rendering accounts and paying this defendant the credit 7 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 balance due to her. The 1st defendant is in no way concerned with the business of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff has made out no case for grant of mandatory injunction and also permanent injunction as sought by the plaintiff. Both defendants are not concerned with the property in any manner and they are not in possession of the property or any potion thereof.
In the counter claim the 1st defendant has contended that under the terms of deed of dissolution the plaintiff was under obligation to draw up accounts for the year ending 31.3.2008 and thereafter to pay 1st defendant credit balance due to her. The 1st defendant completely withdrew herself from the affairs of the erstwhile firm, in accordance with the deed of dissolution. The 1st defendant estimates that credit balance due to her as on 31.3.2008 was Rs.1,50,000/- and the plaintiff already admitted this liability in his plaint itself.
The 1st defendant estimates amount due to her is about Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff with interest thereon at 12% p.a. The cause of action arose on 3.7.2008 the date of 8 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 dissolution of partnership and on subsequent dates. Hence 1st defendant prays for direction to the plaintiff to credit balance due to this defendant for having dissolved partnership firm M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation as on 31.3.2008 with future interest at 12% p.a. and for costs.
For all these reasons, both defendants prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant prays to allow the counter clam as prayed for.
4) On the basis of the above Pleadings, following Issues have been framed:-
(1) Whether plaintiff prove that business is started in suit schedule property by plaintiff and 1st defendant under the partnership deed dated: 1.9.2002?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves that 1st defendant is retired from partnership business on 3.7.2008 and from that date plaintiff continued to be lawful possessor of the suit schedule property, 9 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 exclusively entitled to run the business of medical profession in schedule property?
(3) Whether plaintiff proves that during absence of the plaintiff 1st defendant has illegally trespassed in the schedule property and started running the medical profession in it without right and interest?
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as sought in the plaint?
(5) What decree or order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES (Framed on 11.12.2015) (1) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the partnership in b/w her and plaintiff was came to be dissolved on 31.3.2009 and the plaintiff failed to settle the accounts?
(2) Whether defendant No.1 further proves that she is entitled to recover credit 10 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 balance due from the plaintiff with interest at 12% p.a.?
(3) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that she is entitled to recover credit balance due from the plaintiff with interest at 12% p.a.?
(4) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that she is entitled to judgment and decree of accounts of the dissolved partnership firm by way of counter claim?
5) Inspite of grant of sufficient time and opportunity, the plaintiff did not choose to lead evidence and hence on 22.1.2016 the evidence of plaintiff was taken as closed. On the other hand, the 1st defendant by name Dr. Anju A. Agadi, has filed affidavit by way of examination- in-chief. Same was taken as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to 15 and closed side of defendants.
6) I have heard the arguments of both the sides. Counsel for defendant No.1 has also filed written arguments.
11 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009
7) My findings to the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1) ........In the affirmative Issue No.2) ........In the affirmative Issue No.3) ........In the negative Issue No.4) ........In the negative Issue No.5) ........As per the final orders, Addl. Issue No.1)........In the affirmative Addl. Issue No.2)........In the affirmative Addl. Issue No.3)........In the affirmative Addl. Issue No.4)........In the affirmative for the following:
REASONS
8) Issue Nos.1 to 4 & Addl. Issues 1 to 4 :- Since these issues are inter linked with each other they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9) In this case, inspite of sufficient opportunity were given to the plaintiff he does not turn up and not adduced his evidence nor produced any documents on his behalf. On the other hand 1st defendant has claimed counter claim. In support of her case she led her evidence by way of filing her affidavit evidence and same was taken as DW1 12 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 and got marked documents at Ex.D1 to 15. DW1 has not been cross examined by the plaintiff inspite of grant of sufficient time and opportunity.
10) It is the specific case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 being one of the Director of M/s. Agadi Hospital, Wilson Garden, intended to open physiotherapists centre for her patients. The defendant was on lookout for a Doctor who is specialized in the said field. The plaintiff, who had excelled in the field of physical medicine and neuro rehabilitation, approached the 1st defendant and accepted the proposal of the 1st defendant to start the centre for physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation on partnership and they entered into partnership deed dated 1.9.2002 and opened M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation in the suit schedule property and successfully carried on the business till the middle of the year 2008. Thereafter, due to misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the defendant No.1 decided to retire from the 13 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 partnership and plaintiff shall continue the business with different name and in the mean time plaintiff shall get the accounts of the partnership firm drawn up to the date of retirement of the 1st defendant from the above said firm and credit balance, if any, due to the 1st defendant, shall be paid within one year from the date of retirement of the first defendant. They entered deed of dissolution of partnership dated 3.7.2008 and shifted entire responsibility of the said firm on the plaintiff to carry on the aforesaid business in the schedule property. It is further case of the plaintiff that due to some personal family problems he was held up in his native place and taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff the 1st defendant trespassed into the schedule property and by joining hands with 2nd defendant started running the business under the name and style Survodaya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, without any manner of right, title or interest to run the business in the schedule property. Hence, they are to be directed to handover business in the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by way of mandatory injunction and for permanent 14 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 injunction, restraining the defendants from carrying on business in the schedule premises by the plaintiff.
11) On the other hand it is the case of defendant No.1 that she admits that herself and the plaintiff formed partnership firm namely M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation [the firm] in the year 2002 by virtue of partnership deed dated 1.9.2002. At that time M/s. Agadi Hospital was in possession of the suit schedule property as lessee. The firm was allowed to operate out of the portion of the building with permissible possession in the nature of licencee. The defendant No.1 made sizeable investment in the capital of the firm. Initially the firm business was being run at loss for first two years. The firm finally showed some small profits in the year 2006-07 and the plaintiff continued to make large drawings in excess of the profits. Till the end of financial year 2006- 07 the plaintiff held Rs.48,500/- as his share of capital and the 1st defendant held Rs.1,43,152/- as her share of capital. It is further case of defendant No.1 that she was to be given 15 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 40% share in the remuneration of the firm. In view of the plaintiff continued to make drawings he got himself in to deep financial troubles and he had taken large sum of money on loan and he did not appear to be interested in running the business. Therefore, defendant No.1 decided to end up the partnership firm with condition that the accounts of the firm had been finalized until 31st March 2007 and the 1st defendant executed dissolution of partnership deed dated 3.7.2008. Accordingly the partnership was came to be dissolved from 31.3.2008. It was agreed that the plaintiff would get the accounts drawn up to 31.3.2008 and would pay the credit balance to the defendant No.1 within one year or on or before 31.3.2009 and the plaintiff was in possession and control of the assets of the business of the firm. But, the plaintiff still not drawn up the accounts of the firm and has made no payments to defendant No.1 and disappeared from the suit schedule property therefore, defendant No.2 approached the management of M/s. Agadi Hospital and asked permission to use the said premises for the purpose of running physiotherapy centre hence he was allowed to do 16 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 so. On 28.1.2009 he was given permissible entry to the premises. But defendant No.1 not involved in the running of physiotherapy centre. However, in the month of July 2009, owner of the premises requested the premises to be returned and accordingly on 13.12.2009 the premises was returned to the owner. Therefore, the 2nd defendant is no longer operating out of the suit schedule property and has shifted out.
12) It is further case of defendant No.1 that the plaintiff after dissolution of the firm by the defendant No.1 not drawn up accounts of the firm and not made payments to defendant No.1. Therefore, defendant No.1 has claimed counter claim of Rs.1,50,000/- and prays to direct the plaintiff to draw up accounts of M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation centre, for the year ending 31.3.2008 and to pay the 1st defendant credit balance due to her with interest at 12% p.a. Defendant No.1 has denied the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 trespassed in to the suit schedule property. 17 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 Therefore, she contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
13) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 started to run the business in the name and style M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation on partnership in the suit schedule property. It is also not in dispute that they entered into partnership deed dated 1.9.2002, as could be seen from Ex.D1 unregistered partnership deed entered into in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 carried on business successfully till middle of the year 2008 and it is also not in dispute that thereafter due to some misunderstanding between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, defendant No.1 decided to retire from the partnership and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into the deed of dissolution of partnership dated 3.7.2008 as could be seen from Ex.D2 the deed of dissolution of partnership. It is also not in dispute that in view of dissolution of partnership the plaintiff shall 18 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 continue the said business in his individual capacity in the suit schedule property by taking over all the assets and liabilities of the firm and he shall get the accounts of the partnership firm drawn up to the date of retirement of defendant No.1 and the same shall be paid within one year from the date of retirement of defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has not paid the share of defendant No.1 a sum of Rs.1,43,152/- and not finalized the accounts up to 31.3.2008 and not paid entire credit balance due to the defendant No.1 within one year from the date of dissolution of the partnership firm as per its terms.
14) It is the case of the plaintiff that while carrying out the said business, due to some personal family problems, he was held up in his native place to sort out his family issues. At that time, defendant No.1 who is nothing to do with the schedule property or business of the plaintiff trespassed into the suit schedule property and joined hands with defendant No.2 and started to run the business under the name and style Survodaya Physiotherapy and 19 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 Rehabilitation Centre. Therefore, the plaintiff has constrained to file the suit for mandatory injunction directing defendants to handover the business in the schedule premises to the custody of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carrying on the business in the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
15) But, the defendant No.1 has totally denied the contention of the plaintiff that during the absence of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 trespassed in to the suit schedule property and joined hands with defendant No.2 and started to run the business in the name and style as Survodaya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that she retired from the partnership firm entered into in between her and the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and plaintiff entered into deed of dissolution of partnership as per Ex.D2 enabling the plaintiff to run and continue the business in the suit schedule property independently. It is further case of defendant No.1 20 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 that the partnership firm did not own or rent any property in its name. At that point of time M/s. Agadi Hospital was in possession of suit schedule premises as a lessee. Therefore, M/s. Agadi Hospital had allowed the partnership firm to run its business in the suit schedule premises and it was permissible possession in the nature of licence from 2002 to 31.3.2008. But no licence fee were paid to M/s. Agadi Hospital. It is further specific case of the defendant No.1 that the partnership firm was running at a loss. The plaintiff used to make large drawings from the firm's capital. When the firm showed some small profits in the year 2006-07 the plaintiff continued to make large drawings, which were in excess of the profits thereby depleting the firm's capital. The plaintiff held only Rs.48,500/- as his share of the capital of the firm, whereas defendant No.1 held Rs.1,43,152/- as her share of capital in the firm. The plaintiff's share in the firm at this point was about 25% and defendant No.1's share in the firm was 40%. It is further specific case of defendant No.1 that due to large drawings from the capital by the plaintiff, the 21 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 plaintiff got himself in to deep financial difficulties and he did not appear to be interested in conducting business at all. Therefore, defendant No.1 decided to retire from the partnership and executed Ex.D2 deed of dissolution of partnership firm. As per Ex.D2 the plaintiff would get the accounts drawn up to 31.3.2008 and would pay the credit balance due to defendant No.1 within one year from the date of dissolution i.e., on or before 31.3.2009. But, the plaintiff did not draw up the accounts and not paid the amount to defendant No.1 as agreed and the plaintiff disappeared.
16) Thereafter, defendant No.2 approached management of M/s. Agadi Hospital and asked for permission to use the premises for the purpose of running physiotherapy centre and on or about 28th January 2009, the 2nd defendant opened physiotherapy centre under the name and style 'Survodaya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation centre' under partnership. In or about July 2009, the owner of the premises requested to return the suit schedule premises and hence on 31st December 22 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 2009 M/s. Agadi Hospitals returned possession of the premises to the owner.
17) As per the contention of defendant No.1 there was no lease agreement entered into by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule premises with M/s. Agadi Hospital for providing suit schedule premises to run partnership business in the suit schedule premises. No such documents are forthcoming to show that the suit schedule property was taken on lease to run the partnership firm by the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Therefore, it is crystal clear that as contended by defendant No.1 M/s. Agadi Hospital permitted partnership firm of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to carry on its business in the name and style M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation in the suit schedule premises and as per the contention of the defendant No.1 it appears that after dissolution of partnership firm as per Ex.D2 the plaintiff suffered loss in the business and disappeared and did not continue his business in the suit schedule premises. 23 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009
18) As per the contention of the defendant No.1 it appears that when the plaintiff disappeared from the suit schedule premises, from carrying on the business in the suit schedule property, defendant No.2 approached M/s. Agadi Hospital authority for providing the suit schedule premises to run the business under the name and style as Survodaya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre and it appears that on the request of owner to return the suit schedule property, it was returned to its owner in the month of December, 2009. Therefore, defendant No.2 also no longer operating out of the suit schedule property and has shifted out.
19) It is the specific contention of the defendant No.1 that in view of the plaintiff has not settled her accounts as per the terms of Ex.D2, deed of dissolution of partnership, the plaintiff is due to defendant No.1 a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, defendant No.1 has claimed counter claim. From the documentary evidence produced by defendant No.1 at Ex.D1 partnership deed, it is crystal clear 24 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 that the partnership deed was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to run the business namely M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation in the suit schedule property and due to misunderstanding in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 the 1st defendant retired from the partnership as per Ex.D2 dissolution of partnership. From Ex.D2 it is crystal clear that due to misunderstanding between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, defendant No.1 decided to retire from the partnership and has executed Ex.D2 dissolution of partnership enabling the plaintiff to continue his business in the suit schedule premises and to settle the accounts of defendant No.1 up to 31.3.2008 and to pay the amounts within one year from the date of execution of Ex.D2. But the plaintiff failed to pay the amounts due to defendant No.1 therefore, the defendant No.1 issued notice to plaintiff as per Ex.D.3. As per Ex.D3 legal notice issued to the plaintiff, the defendant sought some documents from the plaintiff and called upon the plaintiff to settle the credit balance of partnership firm with interest at 12% p.a. up to 31.3.2008. 25 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 Inspite of it the plaintiff did not settle the accounts of partnership firm to defendant No.1.
20) Ex.D8 to 15 are ITR of partnership firm goes to show that the business transactions were held in respect of M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and in this regard ITR submitted to Income Tax Department showing the business transaction, liability and assets of the plaintiff firm, balance sheet of the year 2003-04 to 2006-07. So, it is crystal clear, that the 1st defendant's share amount was 40% in the partnership firm and in view of defendant No.1 retired from the partnership firm and executed deed of dissolution of partnership dated 3.7.2008 as per Ex.D2, the plaintiff was liable to account for credit balance up to 31.3.2008 of the share of defendant No.1 and to pay the same within one year on or before 31.3.2009. But the plaintiff did not get accounts of the partnership firm drawn up to 31.3.2008 and not paid the same to defendant No.1 within 31.3.2009. Therefore, the plaintiff as on the date of 26 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 the suit was liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to defendant No.1 with interest at 12%.
21) The plaintiff except filing this suit, for the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction did not adduce his evidence nor produced any documents before the court in order to prove his case. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove his contention that during his absence defendant No.1 has illegally trespassed in to the suit schedule premises and joined hand with defendant No.2 and started running the business under the name and style Survodaya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, without any manner of right, title or interest over the schedule property. But in view of the admitted facts that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 started business of partnership in the suit schedule premises and entered in to partnership deed dated 1.9.2002 as could be seen from Ex.D1 partnership deed, and in view of admitted facts of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 that, defendant No.1 retired from the partnership firm on 3.7.2008 and the plaintiff 27 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 continued to be in lawful possessor of the suit schedule premises to run the business of medical profession in the suit schedule premises and defendant No.1 executed deed of dissolution of partnership deed as per Ex.D2 dated 3.7.2008, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative.
22) But in view of the plaintiff failed to give evidence before the court and not produced any documentary evidence to show that defendant No.1 has illegally trespassed in to the suit schedule premises and joined hands with defendant No.2 and started running the medical profession in it without right and interest, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to prove that during his absence defendant No.1 has illegally trespassed into the suit schedule property and started running medical profession in it without right and interest hence, I am of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as sought for in the plaint.
28 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009
23) Whereas defendant No.1 by adducing her evidence as DW1 and producing documents at Ex.D1 to 15 has proved partnership in between herself and the plaintiff was came to be dissolved on 31.3.2009 and the plaintiff failed to settle the accounts and also proved that she is entitled to recover credit balance due from the plaintiff with interest at 12% p.a. and also defendant No.1 proved that she is entitled to recover balance due from plaintiff therefore, she is entitled for judgment and decree of accounts of the dissolved partnership firm by way of counter claim. Hence I answer issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 and 4 in the negative and additional issue No.1 to 4 in the affirmative.
24) ISSUE NO.5 :- In-view of the reasons stated on Issue Nos.1 to 4 and additional issues 1 to 4, above, I proceed to pass the following:
29 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
2) The counter claim, made by defendant No.1 is allowed. The plaintiff is hereby directed to get the accounts of dissolved partnership firm M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation, drawn up to 31.3.2008 and pay credit balance due to defendant No.1 being a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- [Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only] with future interest at 12% p.a. with costs be paid to the defendant No.1.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of November, 2018).
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
30 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of No.230, 12th cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560 027, measuring East to West 80 Ft. and North to South 60 Ft. and bounded by:
East by 12th cross towards the Hosur Road West by Private property
North by 11th Main Road touching 12th cross South by Property No.230/1, belonging to Hombegowda's family (B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE 31 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
NIL LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
DW1 Dr. Anju A. Angadi LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
Ex.D1 Partnership deed
Ex.D2 Deed of dissolution of partnership
Ex.D3 Legal notice
Ex.D4& 5 Postal receipts
Ex.D6 Regd. Acknowledgement due
Ex.D7 Postal cover returned unserved
Ex.D8to15 IT Returns and Financial statement of
partnership firm
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
32 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009
29.11.2018
Plf: by Sri ND
D 1 & 2 :by Sri PN Judgment pronounced in the open court
Judgment (Vide separate detailed Judgment)
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed.
2) The counter claim, made by defendant
No.1 is allowed. The plaintiff is hereby directed 33 O.S.No. 27298 / 2009 to get the accounts of dissolved partnership firm M/s. Agadi Centre for Physical Medicine and Neuro Rehabilitation, drawn up to 31.3.2008 and pay credit balance due to defendant No.1 being a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- [Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only] with future interest at 12% p.a. with costs be paid to the defendant No.1.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BENGALURU