Madras High Court
Kanagammal vs Theatre Abirami on 20 July, 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20/07/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
A.S.No.737 of 1993
Kanagammal ... Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Theatre Abirami
Partnership Concern
through its Managing Partnership
S.Nagalingam.
2.S.Nagalingam
3.V.Murugesan
4.S.Perumal
5.Athimoolam
6.Ragamathullah
7.Muhilan Automobiles
through its prop.Mahalingam
8.Srinivasan
Prop. of Appar Electronics.
9.Ramanthan
10.Vijayakumar
Prop. of Popular Auto centre,
Abirami Theatre Buildings,
Dindigul.
11.Ravi @ Suresh
13.Natesan
14.Narayanasamy Naidu,
Coffee Bar at Abirami Theatre
Buildings, Dindigul.
15.Perumal Thevar
16.Krishnaveni
(R16 brought on record as Lrs. of
the deceased R4 as per order of the
Court dated 31.03.98 in CMP.4021/98
by SJJ and R15 impleaded as party
respondent as per order dated 02.02.1994
in CMP.17470/93 by KSJ)
... Respondents/Defendants
Prayer
This First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.226 of 1986 dated
27.04.1993, on the file of Additional Sub Court, Dindigul.
!For Appellant ... Mr.S.Parthasarathy
(Senior Counsel)
for Mr.D.Rajendiran
^For Respondent... Mr.S.Subbiah
Nos. 1 & 2
For Respondent ... Mr.P.Velmurugan
No.3
For Respondent ... Mr.R.Nandakumar
No.14
For Respondent ... Mr.K.Sridhar
No.15
For Respondent ... Mr.K.Govindarajan
No.16
:JUDGMENT
The appellant herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit has preferred this appeal against the judgment
and decree made in O.S.No.226 of 1986 dated 27.04.1993, on the file of Additional Sub Court,
Dindigul. The suit has been filed for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts.
2. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows:
The first defendant firm is a partnership firm. The said firm has been started in pursuant to the
registered partnership deed dated 14.06.1979 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants
2 to 4. In pursuant to the same, the theatre has been constructed and run in the name of 'Abirami
Theatre'. The plaintiff has paid the share of Rs.2,20,000/-. The second defendant is the Managing
partner. Shops have also been constructed by the firm. The defendants 5 to 14 are the tenants of theshops. Since the second defendant has refused to share the profit and give accounts inspite of the
request made by the plaintiff on several occasions, the present suit has been filed for dissolution of
the partnership firm and rendition of accounts. The partnership firm being registered, under
Partnership Act 1932, the suit will have to be decreed as prayed for.
3. The case of the second defendant is as follows:
The second defendant filed a written statement stating that it is true that the plaintiff has paid a sum
of Rs.2,20,000/-. It is also true that the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4 are partners. It is not true
that the plaintiff was not given a share of the profit. It is also not true that the defendant has refused
to give the accounts. The partnership is not one "at will". The suit is liable to be dismissed, since no
notice has been given to the defendant. It is further stated that the defendants 5 to 14 are
unnecessary parties.
4. The defendants 3 and 4 have filed a separate written statements. They have also supported the
case of the plaintiff and wanted the dissolution of partnership. The defendants 5, 6, 8 to 14 filed
written statements stating that they are only tenants and hence, they are unnecessary parties.
5. The following issues have been framed by the trial Court which are as follows:
1) Is the plaintiff entitled to seek dissolution of the partnership firm?
2) Is the second defendant liable to give the accounts?
3) Is the suit liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties?
4) Is the suit liable to be dismissed for adding unnecessary parties?
5) Is the Court fee correctly paid?
6) Are the particulars about the suit properties correct or not?
7) What is the relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?
6. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1, who is the husband of the plaintiff was examined and the second
defendant has been examined as D.W.1. The plaintiff has marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and the second
defendant has marked Exs.B-1 to B-28. The Court below on an interpretation of Ex.B-1 has held that
the partnership firm is not one of partnership at will and thus, dismissed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
8. The only point of determination in the appeal is as to whether the partnership entered into
between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4 is one of partnership at will or not.
