TURLAPATI MURALIKRISHNA Vs. TURLAPATI HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revisions can be disposed of by a common order, as they arise out of a common judgment.

(2.) The revisionist in C.R.P.No.3179/84 being one of the partners in the 6th defendant-firm, filed a suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts against the other partners Defendants 1 to 5, who are the revisionists in C.R.P.No.1952/84. Preliminary decree was passed on 20.7.1982 dissolving the firm with effect from 30-7- 1980. In the said preliminary decree one Sri C.Madhava Rao was appointed as a Commissioner to ascertain the value of the claim of the plaintiff, who admittedly held 15 ps. share. The ascertainment of the value has not yet been finalised, which is not in dispute. Pending the same, an I. A., was filed by the plaintiff for awarding certain amount by way of maintenance. Though it was resisted, ultimately the lower Court awarded a sum of Rs.750/-, though the claim made was for Rs.1,500/- per month. Aggrieved against that, both the parties filed these two revisions - one against the inadequacy of the maintenance amount, and the other one challenging the very maintenance being granted.

(3.) It is submitted by Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners in C.R.P.No. 1952/84, that after the preliminary decree was passed, a sum of Rs.9,600/- is said to have been paid to the plaintiff. However, this was controverted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that this sum, though was sent by way of a cheque, was returned refusing to accept the same. It is, however, not in dispute that the parties are inter related as brothers. The lower Court while placing reliance on a couple of decisions in Subbayya Maniyagaru v. Konda Swamy and another, (1934)40 L.W. 853 : A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 105, and Bawa Godh Singh v. Bawa Gurdiah Singh and others, A.I.R. 1984 N.O.C. 13, ordered as under: It is not the case of the respondents that the business In the name of the firm had stopped and Its assets and goodwill are not used in the business. So even-though it was observed by the Court while passing the preliminary decree that the firm stood dissolved on 30-7-1980, It does not mean that the petitioner has not present Interest In the assets of the firm and In the business carried on In the name of the firm. The respondents cannot make use of his share of the assets without paying anything to him. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner is maintainable. The respondents failed to show that the petitioner has any other source of Income to make both ends meet. It Is, therefore, just and proper to award the petitioner maintenance for his bare necessities and it shall be adjusted in the final settlement of accounts. In the result, the petitioner is granted Interim maintenance of Rs.750/- p.m., from the month of April, 1984. It shall be taken into account at the time of final settlement of accounts. Accordingly the petition is allowed. No costs."