SRINIVASALU NAIDU Vs. RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree and judgment of Reilly, J., in S.A. No. 1223 of 1927. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Arni by two plaintiffs who are now the respondents before us. Their case was that on 20 December 1916 they and the defendant, who is now the appellant, entered into an oral agreement that they should invest capital in equal shares and carry on at Arni a business in groundnuts, paddy and rice on certain terms, under the name and style of Sri R.A. Subbarayulu Naidu Co. They carried on business accordingly at Arni from 20 December 1916 till August-September 1918. Then they stopped the mandi business at Arni as they found it unprofitable; but, after an interval, they "decided to continue the said company" and carry on business instead at their own village, Vallam, by buying groundnuts and stocking them. This business at Vallam, in which they were assisted by sub-partners, was carried on from 17 November 1919 till January-February 1930, after which misunderstandings arose.

(2.) The suit was brought for dissolution of the "company" and the taking of accounts. In a written statement, which is by no means as clear as could be wished, the defendant has admitted that there was the partnership at Arni, though he denies the truth of some of the details of the partnership as set out in the plaint. The written statement goes on to say that "the partnership came to an end in 1918 as alleged in the plaint," though the plaint has alleged no such thing, and that: it is wrong to state that it was continued into fresh partnership as alleged by the plaintiffs. Both of them were independent and unconnected transactions.

(3.) In para. 5 it speaks of a new business, but in para. 6 it talks of a new partnership. In para 9 it says that the "partnership property" was stored in the plaintiff's house; in para. 11 it refers to the "partnership accounts;" in para. 18 it speaks of the partnership concern" and in para. 19 the "partnership assets" are mentioned, but in none of these paragraphs is it stated whether the partnership referred to was at Arni or at Vallam or at both places. In conclusion it is prayed in the written statement that the accounts may be looked into and settled. It nowhere says in so many words that there was a dissolution of the Arni partnership or sets up that the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of that partnership was barred by limitation. The suit was contested, and decided by the District Munsif, with reference to the first part of issue 2 which runs thus: "Was the partnership at Arni continued at Vallam?"