DATTATREYA KUSHAPPA DESAI Vs. PANDURANGA KRISHNAJI BUGAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common order dated 28.1.2017 in FDP 104/2001 and FDP 20/2003 is challenged in these two appeals. Stated briefly the background for these two appeals, it is as follows:-

(2.) The respondents 1, 2 and 3 deceased persons namely, Annashankar Taralakar, Manohar Apparao Korade and Bhojagadde Krishnaji Venkoba Rao, being the partners brought a suit O.S.1551/1980 in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, against another partner, i.e, the appellant in these two appeals for dissolution and taking of accounts of the firm 'Bangalore Ice Factory'. They sought for inclusion of another business concern 'Lakshmi Ice and Cold Storage' in the suit on the allegation that the appellant ran the latter business concern by divulging the funds of Bangalore Ice Factory. The City Civil Court, by its judgment dated 31.7.1991, decreed the suit and ordered for drawing up of preliminary decree. The appellant preferred an appeal, RFA 460/1991 to this court challenging the preliminary decree. On 3.6.2002, this appeal was allowed with observations that the partnership firm stood dissolved deemingly with effect from 21.8.1976 and that issue No.2 should be decided in final decree proceeding. The issue No.2 is "Whether the second concern styled as 'Lakshmi Ice and Cold Storage' is a part and parcel of suit partnership as contended by the plaintiffs?" or "Whether the said concern belongs exclusively to defendant No.1 as contended by him"?

(3.) Pursuant to the decision in the appeal, the appellant initiated FDP 104/2001 and the original plaintiffs in the suit filed FDP 20/2003. Consolidating these two proceedings for adjudication, the trial court decided issue No.2 holding that Lakshmi Ice and Cold Storage was a part of Bangalore Ice Factory and consequently all the partners had 1/7 share each in the capital account of the partnership firm. With these observations, both FDP petitions were disposed of with a direction to draw final decree. The share of 6th plaintiff was purchased by other plaintiffs. This judgment was challenged before this court in RFA 1574/2005 by the appellant herein, but by judgment dated 25.10.2013, this court dismissed the appeal. A Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3495/2014, preferred by the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed.