LAWS(KAR)-1982-1-7

KAMALAMMA Vs. MAHADEVAPPA

Decided On January 18, 1982
KAMALAMMA Appellant
V/S
MAHADEVAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This execution second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-9 1978 of the First Addl. District Judge, Bangalore City, in Exn. Appeal No. 11 of 1975 on his file. That appeal had been preferred by Mahadevappa, respondent herein, against the order dated 12-11-1975 of the I Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City in Exn. Case No. 124 of 1972 on his file. The District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Civil Judge. In the execution case on the file of the Civil Judge the appellant herein Kamalamma was the decree-holder and Mahadevappa was the judgment-debtor.

(2.) A few facts leading to this litigation may be noted :- Kamalamma, Mahadevappa and one Lakshmamma were partners of a firm known as Benaka Engineering Works. Mahadevappa was the managing partner. Differences arose between the partners. Kamalamma filed a suit in OS No. 174 of 1967 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City for dissolution of the partnership firm and consequential reliefs. Her case was that her contribution to the capital of the partnership concern was Rs. 10,000 ; that Mahadevappa was not properly managing the affairs of the concern ; that accounts of the firm should be taken after dissolving it; and that she should be directed to be paid not merely Rs. 10,000 the investment she had made, plus interest, but also her share in the profits. The reliefs claimed by her in the suit were in these terms : Wherefore the plaintiff prays for judgment and decree :-

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants jointly the averments made in the plaint that the managing partner was misusing the funds of the firm etc., were denied. It was further stated that the transactions of the firm were borne out in ths account books ; that the capital invested by the partners had been converted into material assets, and that the firm was about to start earning profits ; and that the allegations contrary to all these in the plaint were all false and her suit should be dismissed.