N CHELLIAH SERVAI Vs. AR VAIRAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit is directed against the decree and judgment dated 28.2.1995 made in O.S.No.12 of 1994 by the court of District Judge, Sivaganga District.

(2.) Suit filed for rendition of true accounts relating to the firm 'S.VE.Selliah' at Singapore maintained by the defendant. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff has a money lending firm in Singapore under the name and style of 'S.VE.Selliah' at 49, Market Street, Singapore, which was started on 5.12.1951; that the plaintiff accommodated the defendant, who had not contributed money for his share, as a sharer in the said business, since the defendant had much experience in money lending business for which no deed of partnership was entered into except the book adjustment; that as agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant has been looking after the said business and submitted accounts to income-tax department and remitted amounts; that the licence for the said business has been granted; that as promised and undertaken by the defendant, he had not sent any account of the said business; that the defendant on 11.6.1986 visited India to attend his 2nd daughter's marriage and at that time, the plaintiff demanded the true accounts from the defendant for which he also promised to send the true accounts of the firm on or about January,1989; but the defendant never sent the accounts as promised by him; that the plaintiff tentatively valued his share to the tune of Rs.55,000/- and hence, the plaintiff prays to direct the defendant to render true accounts of the firm and to pay the plaintiff's share of amount as per accounts.

(3.) In the written statement the defendant would submit that the partnership firm was started on 25.1.1952 by equal investment of plaintiff and defendant by which the firm was also named by using the two initials as 'Seyna-Vanayena Selliah' and it was registered according to the law of Singapore for which the accounts were properly maintained and assessed for income tax; that the plaintiff had not visited Singapore as promised but the defendant went to India on 1.9.1977 and settled the accounts; that in the meantime, the Government of Singapore took steps to demolish the building where the money lending firm was put up; that since the business was also closed, the matter was intimated on 23.11.1977 to the Singapore Registrar of Business as per Section 13(1) of Business Registration Act,1973, which matter is known to the plaintiff as the defendant was in India from 1977 to 1982 and he would pray to dismiss the suit with costs.