KARRI VENKAYYAMMA Vs. GOLUGURI TIRAPAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the 13th defendant, the legal representative of the second defendant, against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge, East Godavari reversing that of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry in O. S. No. 71 of 1944. The said suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration that the suit partnership became dissolved on 22-4-1944, or for a dissolution of the suit partnership by Court as from the date of the suit for taking accounts of the partnership and to recover the plaintiff's share therein. The case of the plaintiff may be briefly stated. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 and another Karri Suryanarayana Reddi husband of the 10th defendant and father of defendants 11 and 12 entered into a partnership, on or about 5-9-1930 at Anaparti for the purpose of purchasing and selling plantain mango and other fruits and also doing commission, business in fruit and carried on business under the name and style of Karrivirr Reddi and Co. at Anaparti. They also opened a branch at Jambagh, Hyderabad and carried on business there from 5-9-1939. The head office of the suit partnership was managed by the second defendant and the other branch by she first and second defendants. Accounts for the business carried on for both the head and branch offices were kept by defendants 1 to 3. One of the partners, Karri Suryanarayana Reddi died on 22-4-1944 and the suit partnership became dissolved by reason of his death from that date. Defendants 1 and 2, taking advantage of the fact that large moneys were lying with them were not settling the accounts. The suit was therefore filed for the aforesaid reliefs. The 13th defendant, the legal representative of the 2nd defendant filed a written statement denying most of the material allegations made in the plaint. It was alleged that the original partnership business was dissolved in December 1939. A new firm was formed in December 1939 but it was dissolved in 1941 after settlement of accounts. In 1943-44 another firm was formed and the death of Karri Suryanarayana Reddi in April 1944 had the effect of dissolving that firm. She denied that the firm started at Hyderabad was the branch firm of the plaint firm and stated that the firm at Hyderabad was formed with defendants 1 and 2 as sole partners. She also denied that they were managing the partnership of Karri Virr Reddi and Co. at Anaparti. The first defendant adopted the written statement filed by the second defendant. On the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed: "I. Whether the suit partnership on 5-9-1939 is true?

(2.) Who are the partners and what are its terms? 2(a). Are defendants 1 to 3 liable to account?

(3.) Was it dissolved by death on 22-4-1944? 3(a) If not, is the plaintiff entitled to dissolution from the date of suit?