PONNAGANTI KONDAIAH Vs. MALLELA SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No. 1223/78 on the file of V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, aggrieved by the reversing Judgment and decree made in A.S.No.28/82 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, had preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) . The plaintiff who had instituted the suit being unsuccessful in the original court had obtained a decree by virtue of the reversing Judgment made by the appellate Court. The said plaintiff, it is represented, died during the pendency of the Appeal and inasmuch as though the legal representatives were brought on record, the same was not shown, in the present Second Appeal, the said legal representatives-respondents 2 to 5, are brought on record. The dispute is in relation to the statement (sic. settlement) of accounts of an unregistered partnership firm. There is some controversy even in relation to the dissolution of the firm - the plaintiff asserting that the firm continues and the defendant taking a stand that the firm was dissolved, and Ex.B-1 came into existence in token of the final settlement. The court of first instance after recording evidence of P.W.1/ plaintiff, D.W.1/defendant and D.W.2 and D.W.3 - attestors of Ex.B-1, and on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence - Exs.A-1 and A-2, the office copy of the registered notice and the reply and Ex.B-1, dated 22-11 -1976 - agreement executed by the P.W.1 in favour of D.W.1, ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that the deceased plaintiff Mallela Subba Rao received Rs.5000/- in full settlement of the accounts and walked out of the joint business as recited in Ex.B-1 and he is not interested in the said business from the said date and hence he was not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the said Mallela Subba Rao, the plaintiff preferred appeal A.S.No.28/82 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur and the appellate court had reversed the judgment of the trial court principally on appreciation of evidence and the contradictory nature of the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and certain inconsistencies and improbabilities. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant had preferred the present Second Appeal.

(3.) Both the Counsel had advanced elaborate arguments pointing out to the findings recorded by the court of first instance and also the appellate court.