DAGGUMATI RADHAKRISHNAIAH Vs. YEDLAPALLI GOVINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by D. Radha krishnaiah to revise the order of the learned District Munsif, Nellore in O. S. No. 51 of 1957 giving a finding on Preliminary Issue No. 4. The relevant fuels are as follows: Two plain-tiffs filed O. S. No. 51 of 1957 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nellore impleading seven defendants. Of these, the second defendant is D. Radhakrishnaiah in his capacity as partner of a firm (Aytha Venkataseshaiah Oil Co.) which included plaintiffs 1 and 2 and also defendant 1 and 2. In the plaint, as originally framed, it was contended that one Aytha Venkata-seshaiah (third defendant) was also a partner of this partnership. This partnership is hereafter referred to for convenience in this order as plaintiff-firm. The first defendant is Aytha Venkataseshaiah. The fourth defendant is another firm called D. Radhakrishnaiah and Aytha Venkata Seshaiah New Account. For convenience, I shall refer to it hereafter as the fourth-defendant firm. In the plaint as originally framed, it was contended that its partners consisted of Aytha Venkata Seshaiah (fifth defendant who was the same person as the first defendant), D. Radha-krishnaiah (who is personally identical with the second defendant) and Aytha Venkataratnam (Seventh defendant who is personally identical with the third defendant), In the plaint, the plaintiffs asked reliefs as follows: "(a) for a preliminary decree declaring that suit firm be dissolved as from date of plaint; (b) declaring plaintiffs share in the suit partnership; (c) directing 1st defendant to render a proper account in respect of plaintiffs share in the firm and produce into court all the partnership account books vouchers and documents in his custody. (d) for directing a general account, after dissolving the 4th defendant firm in respect of the liability of the 4th defendant and defendants 5, 6 and 7 as its partners, in respect of cash dealing between suit firm and the 4th defendant firm. It was contended in the plaint as follows: "The partnership (plain tiff-firm) was at will Then; are cash dealings and running account between suit firm

(2.) A written statement was filed by D. Radhakrishnaiah which purported to be written statement of defendants 2. 4 and 6. In it, he stated as follows: "This defendant has no objection for the dissolution of the suit firm, ascertainment of the profits."

(3.) The first defendant filed written statement. The third defendant filed another written statement adopting that of the first defendant.