PAMURU VISHNU VINODH REDDY Vs. CHILLAKURU CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE few facts which are relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal in brief are that one Pamuru Rama Subba Reddy filed the suit O.S. No. 126 of 1976 for dissolution and accounting of the partnership assets of the firm Vijay Mahal THEatre. THE defence set up to resist the suit was that the plaintiff and the 4th defendant retired from the firm in the year 1971 and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek dissolution of the partnership and the settlement of the accounts. THE suit was decreed. In the first appeal, the High Court affirmed the findings of the trial court; however, set aside the decree for dissolution of the firm and directed the defendants to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff towards his share in the assets of the firm on valuation without resorting to the sale of the assets of the firm. THE High Court directed the trial court to make an enquiry into the valuation and to decide the date on which the valuation of the plaintiff's share shall be arrived at taking into account that the plaintiff's share was not paid to him. Against the said judgment of the High Court, special leave petition was filed before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn in 1987.

(2.) THE first defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 7 to 11 were added as his legal representatives. M. Subba Reddy to whom the share of the plaintiff was said to have been transferred was impleaded as 12th defendant to the suit as per the directions of the High Court. During the pendency of the enquiry into the valuation of the plaintiff's share in the assets of the partnership firm, the plaintiff died and his minor son Pamuru Vishnu Vinodh Reddy, represented by his natural guardian was added as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions touching the controversy raised by the parties, we feel it necessary to state few more facts as can be gathered from the judgment of the High Court in A.S. No. 481/1979.