LAWS(MAD)-1977-8-11

M C MANICKAM Vs. V SM SIVALINGAM CHETTIAR

Decided On August 10, 1977
M.C.MANICKAM Appellant
V/S
V.SM.SIVALINGAM CHETTIAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal and the cross-objections are against the final decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership and taking of accounts. The partnership business was carried on in a town in Indonesia under the name and style of M. C. Firm. Chinniah Chetti, whose adopted son has filed the suit, had an 11 anna share in the said business. The first defendant in the suit is the widow of the said chinniah Chetti. The third defendant is the daughter-in-law of Chinniah Chetti and the first defendant through another pre-deceased adopted son. The second defendant Sivalingam Chetti had a 5 anna share in the said firm.

(2.) THE plaintiff's suit for dissolution of the partnership and for taking of accounts was filed on 29-6-1950. The second defendant raised various contentions, one such contention being that the accounts of the firm had been settled and that there was no case for dissolution of the firm and taking of accounts. It is common ground that the business of the firm had come to an end even in 1948. But, according to the plaintiff, there was no final settlement of account. It was also his case that the funds of the suit firm (M. C. firm) had been diverted to another firm called V. S. V. firm which was run as a partnership between the second defendant and others. The prayer was that the profits from the said firm should also be brought in on the ground that only from out of the moneys diverted from M. C. firm the business of V. S. V. firm was carried on.

(3.) THE preliminary decree in the suit, as modified by this court on appeal, is one for dissolution of the partnership firm, viz. , the said M. C. firm, and taking of accounts inclusive of the profits from V. S. V. firm. This court also held in favour of the plaintiff on the question whether the moneys had been further diverted to certain other firms. The decision of this court was that in respect of such moneys that were found to have been so diverted to other firms, the second defendant should be directed to bring back the amount with interest.