CHATHU KOTTOLLATHIL Vs. PARVEETTI HARIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The additional defendants 2 to 5 in O.S.80/2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vatakara are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.)

(2.) The plaintiff filed the above suit originally for dissolution of partnership and rendition of account. Subsequently the prayer for declaration was also incorporated. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants 2 to 5. The plaintiff and the original defendant had entered into a partnership business in the name and style 'M/s.Unique Wood Industry' at Thanneerpanthal. It was a partnership at Will. The share capital of the firm was Rs.5,50,000.00 and out of which, the plaintiff contributed 25% and the original defendant contributed 75%. Ext.B1 is the partnership deed dtd. 8/9/2000 executed by them in that respect. Till 2004, the business was running smoothly. According to the plaintiff, thereafter the defendant himself managed the firm, forged his signature for filing applications before authorities and obtained new licence. He also alleged that in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to show the accounts of the firm to him. Therefore, he issued a lawyer notice dtd. 23/12/2010 calling upon the defendant to execute a dissolution deed and to settle the accounts within 15 days from the date of the notice. Since the above request was not complied, the plaintiff filed the suit originally for dissolution and for rendition of accounts.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant, while denying the allegations in the plaint he contended that the land and the building wherein the partnership business has been carried on are the assets of the firm and that the plaintiff's share capital of Rs.1,38,750.00 is the value of the land and building as estimated by them. The sum and substance of the contention raised by the defendant is that the land and building wherein the partnership business has been carried on, are to be treated as the assets of the firm and the same also is to be partitioned among the plaintiff and defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff amended the suit incorporating a prayer that the land and the building wherein the partnership business has been carried on exclusively belong to him. Therefore, he prayed for a declaration to that effect and also a mandatory injunction for getting possession of the said property.