VIJAYAKUMAR RAU Vs. B MANOHAR RAMA RAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed the aforesaid application seeking to pass an interim decree and judgment based on the admission made by the first defendant/first respondent in the letter dated 14. 6. 2004.

(2.) THE plaintiff has instituted the suit in C. S. No. 912 of 2004 for partition, to direct the first respondent to render true and proper account and also for settlement of accounts under sections 46 and 48 of the Partnership Act.

(3.) THE plaintiff/applicant would contend that the partnership consists of the immovable property bearing No. 829 Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai and movable assets as detailed in the plaint schedule. The aforesaid immovable property was originally purchased by Dr. P. Rama Rau, the grandfather of the applicant out of his earnings. He established a Nursing Home in the said property until his demise on 11. 5. 1956. Dr. P. Rama Rau married Seetha Ramu Rau and out of the wedlock, he had two sons and one daughter viz. , Dr. B. Rama Rau, Dr. Madhava Rau and Mrs. P. Malathi Sripathy Rau. The applicant and the respondents are the sons and daughters of Dr. B. Rama Rau through his second wife Sumathi Rama Rau. On the demise of Dr. P. Rama Rau intestate, his estate was succeeded by his wife and three children. There was a partition in the family under which the immovable property described in the plaint schedule was allotted to B. Rama Rau. He continued the Nursing Home established by his father renaming it as Rama Rau Poly Clinic. It belongs to the joint family of Dr. B. Rama Rau. He constituted the Partnership Firm on 10. 4. 1972 admitting the applicant and the first respondent as partners along with him. Mrs. Sumathi died on 20. 11. 2002 and Dr. B. Rama Rau died on 5. 1. 2003. After the demise of Dr. B. Rama Rau, the applicant and the respondent became the only legal heirs to succeed to his estate. The Partnership was also re-constituted on 6. 1. 2003. The applicant decided to opt out of the partnership and terminated the partnership by his letter dated 12. 6. 2004. The first respondent, in his reply letter dated 14. 6. 2004 admitted the share of the applicant herein. He has also admitted the fact that the second respondent is also entitled to moiety in the share of Dr. B. Rama Rau. Under the partnership, each of the partners was entitled to 1/3 share. On the demise of Dr. B. Rama Rau, his 1/3 share is opened up for succession. The applicant and the respondents are entitled to 1/3 share each in the said 1/3 share. The applicant has now filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of his 4/9 share. The first respondent is entitled to 4/9 share and the second respondent is entitled to 1/9 share respectively. The first respondent has no valid defence as the properties are liable to be partitioned. Therefore, the present application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed seeking a decree on the admission made by the first respondent.