RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR Vs. SANKARAIYA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first and second defendants in the suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The appellants died and their legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 3 to 7. The first respondent filed the suit in O. S. No. 65 of 1987 for a decree of dissolution of partnership business directing the first defendant to render account and also allotment of 1/3rd share to the plaintiff in the assets and liabilities. The plaintiff, 1st and 4th defendant have commenced a paddy rice and maligai business in the name of Sri Shankaraiya Chettiyar as Hindu undivided family concern. It is admitted that the plaintiff, first defendant and the 4th defendant Palani are brothers. Since the 4th defendant was in the Government service, his son the third defendant Gunalan was representing him in the business. According to the plaintiff, the business was started in the year 1956 and came to an end on 14. 08. 1973, when there was a family partition. According to the plaintiffs, in spite of the family partition, accounts relating to the said family business were not taken and the first defendant were maintaining the accounts. The cheques issued in the name of the plaintiff by the customers were endorsed in favour of the first defendant.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, it is from the funds raised out of the family business, the first defendant has purchased the suit property numbering 9 items in the name of his wife the second defendant. It is also the case of the plaintiff that from 1956 - 1973 in the family business the turn over was running to several lakhs and the first defendant has himself maintained the amounts. In these circumstances, the suit for dissolution of partnership came to be filed.

(3.) THE case of the defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement was that the business was started in the name of the plaintiff and its accounts were maintained by the 4th defendant throughout, even though he was working in Court. The first defendant also denied that there was any account much less audited accounts in respect of the business. It is the case of the first defendant that the plaintiff started living separately from 1969 onwards and there has been a registered partition among the brothers on 14. 08. 1973 and various properties were allotted to various brothers as per the registered partition deed marked Ex. B. 9 and the partition deed also clearly states that all business which was carried on by the brothers and the properties purchased by them shall belong to them respectively.