RAMANATHAN CHETTY Vs. ALAGAPPA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is presented against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Devakotta in the following circumstances. The suit out of which it arises was instituted for the dissolution of a partnership and for accounts in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad. It was transferred to the then existing Temporary Subordinate Judge of Ramnad and he passed a preliminary decree, on 23 October, 1913, dissolving the partnership from the date of the plaint and appointing a Commissioner to examine and report upon the accounts. The Commissioner presented his report on 14 January, 1915, and the Temporary Subordinate Judge passed a final decree on 22nd March, 1915. It is with the legal aspect of a passage in this decree that we are now concerned. The decree contains certain provisions such as normally find place in a final decree for the dissolution of a partnership and then occurs the following passage: This Court doth further direct that the 1 defendant do take the good outstandings due to the firm as found in the Commissioner's report and that he do account to the other partners for the same.

(2.) This is based upon a passage in the judgment which says: As the 1 defendant has always been the managing partner and as he has been instituting suits for recovery of all outstandings, etc., the good outstandings due to the firm as found in the Commissioner's report will be taken by him and he will account to the partners for the same.

(3.) It appears from the Commissioner's report that the parties failed to assist in the realization of the assets and the settlement of their accounts and accordingly he had to propose to the Court the appointment of a receiver for this purpose, and the Court decided to take the course above-mentioned. The 1 defendant appealed against this decree to the High Court but died before the appeal was disposed of. Nevertheless, the above-quoted passage was reproduced in the appellate decree. So far as we are concerned, it is agreed that we may disregard the appellate decree in this respect and may base ourselves upon the terms of the decree, dated 22nd March, 1915. No attempt was made by any of the parties to enforce the direction given to the 1 defendant until 14 October, 1925, when the 6 defendant, son of one of the partners, applied to the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura to pass a final decree in pursuance of that direction. About a year later the application was returned by the Additional Subordinate Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction and it was represented to the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Devakotta.