KANTAMANENI RAJAGOPALA PRASAD Vs. TATINENI VENKATA SUBBARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in O.S.No. 112 of 1956 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for dissolution of the partnership of an unnamed firm and for accounts.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendan constituted a firm without a name and that firm was formed for the purposes of carrying on transport business and in pursuance thereof, they purchased five vehicle which were being run on different routes in Krishna District. It was agreed among the partners that the plaintiff should supervis and control the proper running of the bus services and that defendants 1 and 2 should have control over the finances of the firm including the daily collections. Subsequently, disputes arose between the partners and those disputes had to be referred to arbitration. The award given by the arbitrator (3rd defendant) was challenged by the wife of the plaintiff under section 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act and the Court set aside the award. Thereafter the plaintiff laid action on 26th October, 1956 for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts by defendants.1 and 2. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of the 1st defendant and they were impleaded as such on an application made by the plaintiff on the ground that certain assets of the 1st defendant belonging to the firm have fallen to the share of defendants 4 and 5.

(3.) This action of the plaintiff was resisted by the 1st defendant on the ground that there was no partnership of the kind alleged in the plaint between himself and the plaintiff or with the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant according to him, was never a partner of any firm. Even if it is held that there was a partnership among the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2, that partnership formed was an illegal one as it was contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as no partnership can be formed for running buses with permits which are held by others, that there were four different kinds of partnerships in which he and the plaintiff were partne s, and those partnerships had nothing to do with the one in dispute, and that there is no liability on his part to render any account to the plaintiff.