MURALEEDHARAN Vs. IBRAHIMKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is directed against the preliminary decree and judgment in OS 311/1995 passed by the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam. Defendants 1 and 6 in the suit are the appellants.

(2.) Suit was one for dissolution of a partnership firm, settlement of accounts and other reliefs. After trial a preliminary decree was passed dissolving the partnership and directing the defendants to render accounts. Defendants were also restrained from alienating or encumbering the assets of the firm. That decree is assailed by appellants filing this appeal.

(3.) Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be summed up thus: A firm by name Lotus Constructions, dissolution of which was sought for by plaintiffs, was constituted under the original of Ext. A1 deed and it consisted of plaintiffs, two in number, and defendants 1 to 5 as partners. That partnership is one at Will and it was constituted for doing business in real estate and construction. First defendant was managing partner of the firm and he was empowered to open and operate bank accounts on behalf of the firm. He was liable to maintain accounts of the firm, but, he mismanaged the affairs and misappropriated the funds of the firm was the case of plaintiffs. He had executed sale deeds over the properties of firm without authority and sanction from the other partners, and, such alienations made are not binding on plaintiffs, was their further case. The first defendant has constituted a rival firm, 6th defendant, with him as its managing partner to do the same business was the case of plaintiffs to seek a decree of injunction against him from continuing as a partner of 6th defendant. After issuing a notice for dissolution of firm demanding defendants to render accounts, which was not responded to, the suit was laid for dissolution of the firm, rendition of accounts and also for an injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating and encumbering the assets of the firm.