CHILLAKURU MOHAN REDDY Vs. PAMURU RAMA SUBBA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 6 are the appellants in this appeal. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.126 of 76 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Nellore subsequently transferred to Subordinate Judge's Court and numbered as O.S.No. 12/75 for dis solution of partnership between himself and the defendants and for settlement of accounts. The case of the plaintiff is that himself and defendants 1,2,4 and 5 were carrying on business in exhibition of cinematographic films at Nellore in partnership under the name and style of Vijaya Mahal, Nellore as per the partnership deed dated 15.8.1962. Subsequently the 3rd defendant also was admitted into partnership as per deed dated 2.10.1970 but the same was not given in effect to. The 2nd defendant is the Managing Partner and the plaintiff was receiving the profits of his share as per the deed dated 15.8.1962. However when the managing partner refused to furnish copy of the account for the year ending 31.3.1974 the plaintiff laid the suit for dissolution of partnership. It is also alleged in the plaint that the allegations in the reply notices issued by the defendants that he agreed to retire from the partnership are not true and the partnership deeds dated 5.4.1971, 9.11.1971, 16.9.1971 and 2.2.1974 are not known to him and the same are not binding on him. Hence the suit.

(2.) The 2nd defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 1, 3 and 6. It is averred in the written statement that the partnership with the plaintiff was admitted as per Ex.B.7 but it is contended that the plaintiff and the 4th defendant gave up their shares and retired from the partnership as the plaintiff transferred his share to Muppalla Subbareddy and also the 3rd defendant and the 4th defendant transferred his share to the 2nd defendant and the same was evidenced by Ex.B.21 dated 5.4.1971. It was further alleged in the written statement that the defendants' family gave up their share in the other partnership venture in Vijaya Laxmi Talkies and it is not true to say that the plaintiff continued as partner in the suit partnership of Vijaya Mahal though the partnership deed dated 5.4.1971 was not filed before the Income Tax authorities as desired by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is bound by the said deed as he and the 4th defendant, the retiring partners attested the same and in view of the fact Ex.B.21 was not filed before the Income Tax authorities a fresh deed was executed on 9.11.1971 which was also attested by the plaintiff and the 4th defendant wherein the wife of the 2nd defendant was also taken as a partner and subsequently the accounts of the plaintiff wei'e settled fully and he was. paid off his entire dues in Vijaya Mahal on 16.9.1973 by which date reconstitution of the firm took place consisting of defendants 1, 2,5,6 and M.S.Reddy and the said deed was registered before the Registrar and the same was filed before the Income Tax authorities and the said firm was again reconstituted on 2.2.74 as per Ex.B.29 consisting of defendants 1,3 and 6 and it is not possible for the plaintiff to ask dissolution of the partnership at this stage and consequently the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The 4th defendant filed a separate written statement admitting the attestation of Exs.B.21'and B.22 along with the plaintiff evidencing the retirement but contended that those deeds Exs.B.21 and B.22 were not filed before the Income Tax Officer as it was agreed that as and when the amounts due to the plaintiff and to him are paid they should be deemed to have been retired and he received the full consideration in 1973 and he also learnt that the plaintiff also was paid the amount due to him and he is an unnecessary party and the suit may be dismissed against him.