PALLA VEERASWAMI Vs. BANDARU CHITTI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of proceedings for passing a final decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts. The first plaintiff and the first defendant were partners and commenced business as partners on 16th September, 1923. They carried on business in tobacco until July, 1925, when on account of disputes between them the business was stopped The first plaintiff then instituted this suit on 2nd February, 1926, for dissolution of the joint business and for taking accounts of the partnership. A preliminary decree dissolving the partnership was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 28 September 1931 and it had become final as there was no appeal against it. A Commissioner was appointed to take accounts and he submitted his report, dated 18 June 1933. The matter then came up for consideration before the learned Subordinate Judge after objections were filed by both parties. After considering the objections the learned subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,337-9-10 with interest on that amount at six per cent. per annum from the date of the plaint till realisation. The matter was carried in appeal by the defendants to the District Court, East Godavari The learned District Judge modified the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge by reducing the amount decreed by a sum of Rs. 2,000. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge.

(2.) For the appellants three points have been argued before me The first is that the Courts below erred in giving credit to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs 702-2-6 as advance ; secondly, that the Courts below did not follow the principles laid down in Section 48 of the Partnership Act for the distribution of the assets of a partnership in winding up ; and thirdly, that the Courts below erred in granting interest on the amount decreed from the date of the plaint instead of from the date of the final decree.

(3.) As regards the first point, the contention urged by Mr. B.V. Subrarnanyam the learned advocate for the appellants, is that the plaintiff failed to establish his case that the sum of Rs. 792-2-6 represented the value of the tobacco which he had advanced to the partnership. [His. Lordship after discussing the evidence concluded.]