A PALANIAPPA MUDALIAR Vs. P T KANDASWAMY MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RFAs. Nos. 41 and 58 of 1963 and RFA. No.57 of 1966 are the plaintiffs' appeals from the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.Nos.168, 297 and 295 of 1964. RFA.No.58 of 1966 is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.296 of 1964 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellant in all the four appeals is the same person by name A.Palaniyappa Mudaliar. The facts of the cases so far as they are relevant to the question involved in these appeals are very simple. Palaniappa Mudaliar, the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.168, 297 and 295 of 1964, is the brother-inlaw of the brother or P. T. Kandaswami Mudaliar, the first defendant in these suite. Kandaswami Mudaliar the first defendant is the father of the second defendant Ramaswamy Mudaliar. In O.S. No. 296 of 1964 the abovesaid Kandaswami Mudaliar and Ramaswamy Mudaliar are the plaintiffs and Palaniappa Mudaliar is the defendant. But for convenience, Palaniappa Mudaliar will be hereafter referred to as the plaintiff and Kandaswami Mudaliar and Ramaswamy Mudaliar will be referred to as defendants. Defendant No.1 has two younger brothers, viz., Nanjappa Mudaliar and Sengoda Mudaliar. Defendants 1 and 2 have been doing business in cloth in wholesale in Bangalore City for over 25 years under the name and style of 'P.T.Kandaswami Mudaliar' and their turnover lately wos more than about Rs.20 lakhs per year. This firm, as admitted by the parties, enjoys a great reputation. Nanjappa Mudaliar and Sengoda Mudaliar are also doing the same business as that of the defendants in the same locality separately.

(2.) Plaintiff in the beg'nning was working as a clerk in the firm of defendants for some years till 1-4-1953 on an snnual salary of Rs.2,000 to Rs.3 000. In the year 1953, he was taken as a working patner of the defendants firm and the partnersh p was registered which came into effect from 1-4-1953 (as per Ext. D-2 dated 22-l-l956) . The plaintiff according to the terms of the partnership was entitled to 4 annas share in a rupee in the profits and loss of the firm. The first defendant was entitled to 8 annas share and the second defendant to 4 annas share.

(3.) The partnership business went on for about 6 years. Thereafter, misunderstandings arose between the parties. Whatever may be the reason, it is admitted that the plaintiff stopped going to the shop and looking after the affairs of the firm from 10-6-1959.