KOMMINENI KRISHNA RAO Vs. KOMMINENI BABJEE RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in L. P. A. No. 92 of 1983 while the first defendant is the appellant in L. P. A. No. 7 of 1985. Both the appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned single judge in A. S. No. 1234 of 1980. While the plaintiff filed the appeal, L. P. A. No. 92 of 1983, against the rejection of the relief prayed for by him for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts on the ground that the same is illegal and opposed to public policy, the first defendant filed the other appeal, L. P. A. No. 7 of 1985, against the relief granted to the plaintiff for payment of the money said to be outstanding to his credit in the account.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as follows : For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed in the suit.

(3.) THE suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 100 equal shares and for allotment of 33 such shares to the plaintiff and for subsequent interest, profits, etc. The suit is based on the ground that the plaintiff as well as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were related to each other and that they conceived the idea of constructing a temporary theatre at Seethanagaram and also to run a business in exhibition of cinemas in the said area. For the said purpose, they purchased the site in the name of the first defendant for the sake of convenience and contributed their respective shares of the consideration. The first defendant obtained licences under Forms A and B under the A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (Act 4 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The first defendant was to be the managing partner of the partnership and he should manage the affairs of the cine exhibition, maintain accounts and keep the common income with him. The partnership business was started on October 11, 1970, after purchasing the necessary equipment. It was alleged that the share of the first defendant was Rs. 0. 55 and that of the plaintiff was Rs. 0. 33 and the share of the second defendant was Rs. 0. 12 and all the three contributed their share capital accordingly. All the monies belonging to the partnership business are with the first defendant and the profits and losses were being divided in the said ratio every year. It was also mentioned that, on January 15, 1976, a written partnership deed was executed by all the three, viz. , the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the partnership business was being run in the name and style of Sri Venkateswara Touring Talkies. In view of the fact that the licence for exhibiting cinema films under rule 12 and the A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), issued under Act 4 of 1955 was in the name of the first defendant and not in the name of the firm, the parties are relegated to the status of co-owners as distinct from that of partners and, therefore, the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act relating to the dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts cannot be resorted to. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendants are co-owners or co-sharers in respect of the schedule mentioned property and that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 0. 33 out of hundred paise and that the first defendant was appropriating the entire profits for himself without giving the respective shares either to the plaintiff or to the second defendant and that he obtained huge profits during the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 by exhibiting films in the theatre and he is liable to account as a co-sharer. In spite of the requests to render accounts relating to the profits of the said years, the first defendant refused to do so. Therefore, the suit is filed for partition of the schedule mentioned property into 100 equal shares and for recovery of 33/100th share, etc.