RENUKA LAKSHMI GRANITES Vs. K MRAJASHEKHARA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order dated 4-7-2003 passed in O. S. No. 7762/2000 by the XXVII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore whereby the said Court had held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit and returned the plaint to the appellant-plaintiff for presenting it before the proper Court.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the rank assigned to them in the lower Court.

(3.) THE case of the appellant-plaintiff is that it is a registered partnership firm which came into existence on 10-4-2000 and the same was registered in the office of the Registrar of firms, Bangalore on 24-4-2000. The business of the plaintiff-firm is quarrying and selling of rough granite blocks. The quarrying business was obtained by the first defendant from the fourth defendant in respect of land Sy. No. 14 of Malleharavu village, Molakalmuru taluk, Chitradurga District for a period of five years with effect from 12-6-1996. It is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the first respondent-defendant had executed irrevocable general power of attorney dated 6-5-1999 in favour of his brother K. M. Chandrashekar-2nd defendant herein, appointing him as his power of attorney in respect of the said quarrying license. Subsequently one Annapurnamma, wife of Chandrashekhar, one M. S. Govardhana and one K. M. Rajashekaramurthy-defendant No. 1 constituted partnership firm in the name and style of 'm/s. Renuka Lakshmi Granites' to carry on business of quarrying and selling rough granite. In the partnership deed it is mentioned that the contribution of third partner-defendant No. 1 shall be quarry lease bearing No. QL 182. It is also mentioned in that partnership deed that he is entitled to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- as consideration for the quarry lease. The partnership deed discloses that the 1st partner-Annapurnamma shall contribute Rs. 1,00,000/-and the second partner shall contribute Rs. 5000/-and that all the three partners shall share profit and loss at the ratio of 75%, 5% and 25% respectively. It is the further case of the appellant-plaintiff that the first respondent-defendant No. 1 has revoked the general power of attorney executed in favour of his brother-respondent No. 2 and attempted to interfere with the business of the firm and also filed objections before defendant No. 4 for transfer of quarry license No. QL 182 in favour of appellant-plaintiff M/s. Renuka lakshmi Granites. Hence the firm represented by its managing partner Annapumamma filed the suit seeking a declaration that the revocation of general power of attorney is infructuous during the subsistence of partnership and for further declaration that the plaintiff-firm is entitled to obtain quarrying license in its favour. So also several injunctive reliefs were sought against the respondents-defendants.