IDICULA JOHN Vs. IDICULA PAPPY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the 1st defendant against the preliminary decree in O.S. No. 14 of 1121 on the file of the District Court of Mavelikara.

(2.) The suit was filed by the 1st respondent plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and for settlement of accounts. The partnership business consisted in the conduct of two chitty schemes registered as No. 118 of 1102 and No. 26 of 1104. There were four partners viz., the plaintiff, defendants 8 and 9 and John Idicula deceased, who was the father of defendants 1 to 6 and husband of the 7th defendant. Under the terms of the partnership agreement Ext. C, drawn between the parties at the time of the starting of the first of these chitties John Idicula was entrusted with the active management of the scheme and was on such account, granted 2/5 share while the other three partners were held entitled each to only 1/5 of the profits. According to the plaintiff the second chitty scheme No. 26 was also started and carried on the same understanding. The plaint averred that the chitty No. 118 terminated on 15.8.1115 one year after the due date by virtue of two extensions under certain special resolutions and that chitty No. 26 terminated in the usual course on 10.7.1116 and that with the death of John Idicula in Vrischigom 1120 his legal representatives the defendants 1 to 7 took up the further conduct of the winding up of the concerns, with the consent of the rest of the partners and as per the terms of Ext. C. They were however not properly attending to the collection or disbursements of the chitty moneys or to the due accounting thereof to the plaintiff and other partners. The suit was accordingly laid on 15.2.1121 for dissolution and accounting as stated above. The defendants 10 to 15 were impleaded as subsequent encumbrances of the property scheduled.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants 1 to 7 mainly on the footing that the chitties in question terminated earlier than alleged in the plaint and that even on the plaint averments as to the termination the prayer for accounting made more than 3 years thereafter was barred by limitation. They denied having taken up management of the chitty after John Idiculas death and the accrual of any personal liability in consequence. They pleaded further that the rights and liabilities of the partners as regards the second chitty scheme No. 26 was not governed by the terms contained in Ext. C.