SYED AZAM Vs. SYED MAHABOOB HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-09-1996 in O. S. No. 237 of 1994, on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the suit filed by the first respondent herein against the appellants and Respondents 2 to 4 for rendition of accounts of the firm known as M/s Deccan Builders, was decreed.

(2.) THE first respondent herein filed the suit with the following averments:-The plaintiff and defendants were partners in the firm known as M/s deccan Builders, which was constituted on 14-04-1979 and subsequently re-constituted under a partnership deed on 04-04-1981. The firm was engaged in the business of construction of multi-storied commercial complex known as 'paigah Plaza' at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. D-1 and d-5 were the Managing Partners of the firm. The plaintiff's share in the profit and loss was 20%. The firm constructed the complex from 1979 to 1983. D-1 and d-5, the Managing Partners, did not furnish statement of account to the partners and did not render any accounts in spite of the demands by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed O. P. No. 386 of 1983, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking reference of dispute to arbitration. On being assured by the Managing Partners that the dispute would be amicably settled, the plaintiff withdrew the said petition. Even thereafter, the managing Partners evaded amicable settlement of dispute. The plaintiff, therefore, got a notice issued on 13-10-1985 dissolving the firm and calling upon the Managing Partners/d-1 and D-5 to render true and proper accounts. The defendants received the notice, but failed to comply with the same. In view of the notice issued by the plaintiff, the firm stands dissolved and the Managing partners are liable to render true and proper accounts of the firm and pay the plaintiff's share thereof. The plaintiff tentatively valued his share of profit of the firm at Rs. 10 lakhs. D-1 to D-4 filed a joint written statement contending, in brief, as follows:-The firm was re-constituted for the third time on 01-04-1989. The plaintiff is no longer partner of the firm as he had already withdrawn and retired himself from the firm through a letter dated 30-03-1982 addressed to D-5, plaintiff and D-6, who were jointly having 50% of the share. The plaintiff did not invest any amount. He was only working with D-5 in a tourist travel business of D-5. The plaintiff was only a name lender to D-5 for the purpose of taxation. The entire amount was invested by D-1. D-5 was in-charge of all the accounts of the firm, having custody of the account books with him. D-5 did not show the accounts to D-1 in spite of demands and he had misappropriated several lakhs of rupees. D-1 also filed a criminal complaint against D-5, plaintiff and D-6 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. D-1 also filed a suit O. S. No. 674 of 1985 before the IV Additional Judge, Hyderabad, for recovery of the amount invested by him. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit or demand rendition of accounts. D-5 and D-6 filed separate written statements supporting the claim of the plaintiff and pleading that the account books of the partnership firm were in the custody of D-1, who was the Managing Director.

(3.) ON the strength of the above pleadings, the trail Court framed the following issues for trial: i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a direction to the defendant to render true and proper accounts as prayed for? ii) To what relief?