ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. M K P KADER MOHIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 3 of 1957, District Court, East Tanjore, are the appellants in the present appeal.

(2.) ONE Pichai Gani Sahib died on 8-11-1955, leaving behind him defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff, his sons, the fourth defendant his widow and defendants 5 and 6 his daughters. During his life-time he was carrying on a business in rice mill, flour mill and oil press at Manjakollai and Nagapattinam for a number of years and when his sons grew up he associated them in his business and on 31-8-1950 he and his sons executed a registered document under which he constituted the aforesaid business as a partnership business. The terms and conditions of the partnership which are embodied in the partnership deed, amongst other things, provide that the partnership shall be deemed to have commenced from 1-4-1949, that it shall be carried on for a period of ten years from 1-4-1949 and that during the aforesaid period if a partner desires to retire from the partnership business he shall only be entitled to receive the amounts standing to his credit in the partnership accounts. The aforesaid Pichai Gani died on 8-11-1955 and within a year thereafter misunderstandings arose between the members of the family in the carrying on of their business, and there were also certain criminal proceedings. It is not necessary to refer to the same in detail and it is sufficient to mention that the relationship between the members of the family was anything but cordial, and mutual trust and confidence which is so essential for carrying on business in partnership ceased to exist amongst the members of the family. The, plaintiff first filed the suit in the Munsif's Court; but later on it was returned for presentation to the proper Court and with certain amendments the plaint was presented in the District Court of East Tanjore on 1-2-1957.

(3.) THE plaintiff asked for the taking of the accounts of the partnership on the ground that by reason of his father's death the partnership became dissolved on 8-11-1955 or in the alternative for dissolution of the partnership under Section 44 (g) of the Indian Partnership Act and for taking of accounts on the ground that serious misunderstandings had arisen between the parties, that the first defendant was guilty of various acts of omission and commission which had seriously impaired the mutual confidence and trust among them and that it is just and equitable that the firm should be dissolved. The plaintiff claimed 160/800 share in his own right and another 287 800 share as an heir to his father. The defendants 4, 5 and 6 though not parties to the original partnership were impleaded as they are also entitled to Pichai Gani's share in the assets of the partnership.