(1.) The following substantial questions of law are framed for a decision:
(2.) The Second Appeal arises at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S. No.511 of 2006 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha. That is a suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for a declaration that the FL-3 licence issued to the 2nd respondent is the asset of the 1st respondent-partnership firm and for a mandatory injunction to direct the respondents to render account of the 1st respondent. The trial court found that the prayer for declaration is barred by limitation underArticle 58 of the Limitation Act. The trial court also found that by abandonment by the appellant there is an implied dissolution of the partnership and hence the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Though the appellant challenged that judgment and decree in the District Court, Alappuzha in A.S. No.138 of 2008, it was without success. Hence this Second Appeal.
(3.) According to the appellant, he was the Managing Partner of the 1st respondent with two other persons including the 2nd respondent also as partners. He was authorized to obtain and hold licence from the State Government (for running business in liquor) and enter into agreement on behalf of the 1st respondent. The appellant took on lease Hotel Plaza for running a Bar restaurant for the 1st respondent. The appellant obtained FL-3 licence from the Excise Department. The firm (1st respondent) was reconstituted on 02.07.1992 and again on 17.12.1993. By the reconstitution, the appellant and the 2nd respondent alone remained as partners of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent was to act as Managing Partner. The FL-3 licence was transferred to the name of the 2nd respondent in his capacity as Managing Partner of the 1st respondent.The partnership functioned. While so, the 2nd respondent started asserting exclusive right as per the FL-3 licence in his name.