VALLAPAREDDY SUMITRA REDDY Vs. KASIREDDY LAXMINARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit O.S.No. 1601 of 1983, which was decided by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was filed by the first respondent herein named Sri Kasireddy Laxminaryana Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff") for dissolution of partnership firm known as Viraj Construction, claiming to be a partner and for settlement of accounts of the firm.

(2.) It appears from the record that the firm was formed in the year 1964 under a deed dated 31-12-1964, which is filed on record and marked as Ex.A-1, with the first respondent and four other partners. It was engaged in public works contracts. In the year 1968 another partnership was formed on 13-12-1968, which is also filed on record and marked as Ex.A-2, bearing the same name with the above five partners and one more person named Sri Dasaratha Ram Reddy, who was made the Joint Managing Partner along with the first appellant herein. It is the dissolution of this partnership firm, which is now sought in the suit.

(3.) It is the further case of the plaintiff that when the firm was running, the plaintiff-1st respondent herein sent a letter dated 9-3-1970 stating that he was retiring from the partnership with effect from 31-3-1970. On 17-7-1970 the agreement was entered into between the retiring partner and other partners. A pronote was executed in favour of the plaintiff by three out of five continuing partners and another person, who is a stranger to the partnership firm, promising to pay Rs.22,500.00 to the retiring partner, the plaintiff in the suit. On the basis of the pronote, the plaintif 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No. 128 of 1975 before the learned District Judge, Nellore against the executants of the pronote for recovery of the money due under the pronote together with interest. The first defendant in the suit, who was one of the executants of the pronote and also a partner in the firm, died on 8-9-1976. His legal representatives were brought on record. The trial court proceeded with the trial. The suit filed by the plaintiff-1st respondent herein was dismissed. The trial court held that the pronote was not supported by consideration and the suit was not maintainable. The trial court also found that the remedy for the plaintiff to lay a suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. Neither the partnership firm nor all the partners were made parties to the suit. The issues were confined only to the territorial jurisdiction of the court and whether the pronote was supported by consideration or not. The trial court discussed these points and ultimately the trial court held that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction and there was no consideration for the pronote and thus the suit was held to be not maintainable.