E JAYARAMAN Vs. A/M THANNEERKATTU PERUMAL THIRUKKOVIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment in A.S.No,47 of 2005 reversing the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.15 of 2002 and thereby dismissing the appellant/plaintiff's suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. For convenience, parties are referred to as they are originally ranked in the suit.

(2.) CASE of plaintiff is that plaintiff is the successful bidder in the auction conducted for the leasehold right of the land situated in S.No,48/2 of Veerichipalayam Village in Sankari Taluk for 3 years for fasalies 1408 to 1410. At the auction held on 31.07.1988, plaintiff deposited Rs.2,00,000/- (vide receipt Ex.A2). Further case of plaintiff is that defendants, who are in-charge of the Temple and its affairs were not able to hand over possession since one M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals was in possession of the property auctioned and whose lease period was over and applied for renewal of the licence for quarrying with the Government of Tamilnadu. Renewal of licence was not granted and hence M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals filed a revision to Government of India as envisaged under Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the said application was remanded for fresh disposal to the Government of Tamilnadu, which was challenged by defendants 4 and 5 in a Writ Petition before the High Court, Madras, which came to be dismissed on 22.09.2000. Alleging that defendants have not handed over possession to the plaintiff as per terms and conditions of auction notice, plaintiff filed the suit for refund of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by him as earnest money deposit along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the decreeing of suit, defendants 4 and 5 preferred appeal in A.S.No,47 of 2005. In the lower appellate Court, the defendants-Temple adduced additional evidence. Exs.B4 to B6-order copies in various writ petitions, Exs.B7 and B8-cheques issued to the Temple signed by the plaintiff as Partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals and Exs.B9 and B10 were also adduced as additional evidence. Upon consideration of evidence, lower appellate Court held that as per Section 25 of the Partnership Act, each and every partner is jointly and severally liable to the partnership firm and for liabilities of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, the plaintiff being a Partner is also liable. Lower appellate Court further held that being a Partner of M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals, plaintiff's claim for refund of Rs.2,00,000/- paid as per Ex.A2 Receipt is not sustainable since M/s.Karuna Mines and Minerals have to pay huge sum of money to the temple authorities. Holding that the trial Court misdirected itself and arrived at a wrong conclusion, the lower appellate Court reversed the findings of trial Court and allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the suit.