Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The trial Court considered the issues 1, 3 and 4 and gave a finding that the partnership firm was not dissolved by an earlier notice, partnership continued, defendants failed to render accounts, the profit and loss account of the dissolved firm was not ascertained and therefore passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 1-10-1969 till the date of realisation of the decretal amount. The suit was originally filed against defendants 1 to 7 only. During the pendency of the suit, D1 died and therefore defendants 8 and 9 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the first defendant. The 2nd defendant as the legal representative of the first defendant was on record. The plaintiff along with defendants 2 to 4 and late V. Sundara Ram Reddy constituted a partnership firm. The finding was given by the trial Court that the plaintiff along with defendants 2 to 4 and late V. Sundara Ram Reddy constituted a partnership firm viz., M/s Viraj Constructions with its headquarters Office at H.No.3-5-942, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad for carrying on business in contracts as per the deed Ex.A1 dated 31-10-1964. It was further held that the plaintiff and 2nd defendant were entitled for 1 4/th share while defendants 3 and 4 and late V. Sundara Ram Reddy were having 1/6th share in the partnership firm. It was further held by the trial Court that the first defendant was admitted as a partner in the said firm and therefore Ex.A2 dated 13-12-1968 was entered. The initial capital of the partnership business was Rs.One lakh. According to the plaintiff, he contributed Rs. 50,000/- to start the business and the firm acquired the land admeasuring Ac.3-27 guntas in Sy.No.28/1 to 3 situated at Begumpet, Hyderabad and two lorries and one Jeep besides iron centering plates with anglers etc.

12. The defendants pleaded that under Ex.A3 dated 17- 7-1970 by which the plaintiff relinquished his share in the immovable property for a sum of Rs. 22,500/-, a pronote was executed in favour of the plaintiff. After expiry of stipulated period of one year for payment, the plaintiff filed OS No.128 of 1975 for recovery of the said amount with interest. During the pendency of the said suit, late Sri V. Sundara Ram Reddy died on 8-6-1976. His legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 5 and 6. In the first suit, the defendants had taken a plea that the plaintiff did not retire from the partnership and the accounts of the partnership firm were not settled and it is not possible to settle the accounts due to the pendency of the suit against the Railways and the firm never stood dissolved. Even after the death of Sri V. Sundara Ram Reddy, his legal representatives did not take the plea that the partnership firm stood dissolved. As stated earlier, OS No.128 of 1975 was dismissed holding that the partnership firm was not dissolved. The plaintiff preferred an appeal and withdrew the same in the S.R. stage earlier and thus under these circumstances, the plaintiff issued Ex All legal notice dated 18-10-1983 to the defendants asking for dissolution of the firm with effect from the date of commencement of the said notice and requested the defendants for rendition of accounts within a period of 15 days. When the accounts were not settled, the plaintiff filed the present suit i.e., OS No.1601 of 1983. In the above suit, the defendants had contended that the suit is barred by limitation as it was not filed within three years from 1-4-1970 on which the plaintiff expresses his intention to retire from the partnership firm or in the alternative the suit should have been filed within three years on the death of Sri V. Sundara Ram Reddy, who was one of the partners of the firm, and the partnership firm stood dissolved on his death. Therefore, contended the suit is not maintainable.

13. It appears from the record that the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for rendition of accounts. A preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendants 1 to 6, 8 and 9 declaring the plaintiff is entitled to 25 ps. share out of 100 ps. Capital amount of the partnership of M/s. Viraj Constructions and the defendants 1 to 6, 8 and 9 were directed to render accounts on or before 31-3-1969 towards the plaintiffs share upto 31-3-1970. The plaintiff has to file a petition to pass a final decree by appointing a Receiver in terms of the preliminary decree. Further the plaintiff was awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount if found to be due to him towards his share after settlement of accounts on 1-4-1970 till the date of realisation. The suit against D7 was dismissed as no relief was claimed against him. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before this Court which was numbered as CCCA No.52 of 1999. The respondents filed cross-objections. The said appeal and the cross- objections were disposed of with slight modifications. The learned single Judge held that the view expressed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, that the plaintiff is entitled to seek rendition of accounts from the defendants upto 31-3-1970 and not from 1-10-1969 towards or till the date of dissolution of the firm i.e., on 18- 10-1983 as claimed in the suit. The learned single Judge further held that when the plaintiff himself wanted to withdraw/ retire from the partnership firm, the defendants have not permitted him to retire from the partnership firm, according to the notice dated 9-3-1970. Therefore the partnership was not dissolved according to his will. On the contrary he continued to be a partner of the firm. As per the judgment in OS No. 128 of 1975, he issued a notice dated 18-10-1983 to dissolve the partnership firm and render accounts. Therefore, the partnership is at will, under Section 43 of the Act, soon after the partner has expressed his willingness to dissolve the partnership firm, after giving notice, the partnership M/s. Viraj Constructions was dissolved on 18-3-1983 and the defendants 1 to 6, 8 and 9 are liable to render accounts to the plaintiff towards his share upto 18-10-1983 and if any amount is due payable to the plaintiff from out of the profits of the partnership firm, he is entitled to receive 12% p.a. till the date of realization. Accordingly the preliminary decree passed by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was modified and the cross-objections filed by the cross-objectors were dismissed.

17. The learned senior Counsel further submitted that there is a bar under Order 2, Rule 2 CPC to institute the second suit. We adjudicate this issue by giving the same reasons as it was given earlier that the partnership was not dissolved. That issue has become final.

18. The third contention raised by the learned senior Counsel that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned senior Counsel contended that D1 died and the partnership firm stood dissolved, though the defendants 5 and 6 were brought on record as the legal representatives of D1. We are also not in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior Counsel for the appellants herein for the reason that the partnership still continue even after the death of D1 and allowing his legal representatives to join as partners in the firm. The firm had taken a contract with the Railways. There was a dispute and a suit was filed. As per the order of the Court, they executed the bonds. Therefore, the sole intention of all the partners was to continue the partnership business.