V S KOTHANDAPANI NAIDU Vs. P VENKATACHALA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O. S. No. 99 of 1960 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore praying for a preliminary decree for taking accounts of a dissolved partnership, to appoint a duly qualified auditor as commissioner to take charge of the accounts, and to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the amount found due of him, or in the alternative to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the amounts advanced by him to the defendants for the business with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of plaint and for costs.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case was this. The plaintiff is a landlord residing in Uyyakondravi village. Defendants 1 and 2 were his close friends. They were doing jewellery mart and shroff business at Virdhachalam. The third defendant is the undivided brother of the first defendant. The fourth defendant is the undivided brother's son of the second defendant. The second defendant is the son-in-law of the first defendant.

(3.) ABOUT the end of 1956 defendants 1 and 2 persuaded the plaintiff to agree to commence and conduct a lorry service business and motor workshop in partnership with them, each of them contributing an initial capital of Rs. 25,000. Defendants 1 and 2 further represented that they would themselves conduct and manage the business and maintain regular accounts, and pay the plaintiff one third share of the profits of the business. The plaintiff agreed to enter into the partnership and paid Rupees 26500 in three instalments as his contribution of the initial capital as required by the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff is not aware whether the defendants 1 and 2 also contributed the same initial capital. He trusted defendants 1 and 2 so much that he did not acquaint himself as to how the business was being conducted. At the commencement of the lorry service, four lorries were purchased from "sri Kamakshiamma Bus service", Vridhachalam for the partnership. As defendants 1 and 2 were each having independent jewellery mart shop and shroff business at Vridhachalam in their names, they had one lorry registered in the name of the third defendant (brother of the first defendant) and one lorry in the name of the plaintiff. Though the lorries were thus registered in the names of the 3rd and 4th defendants and the plaintiff they really belonged to and were the assets of the said partnership firm. For the same reason the accounts of the business was mentioned under the vilasam of S. K. K. representing the initials of persons in whose names the lorries had been registered