Ramaswami, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 93 of 1950.
(2.) THE facts are short and practically undisputed. The defendant along with others was running a cinema business as exhibitors and distributors. Subsequently the members who constituted this company got separated. Thereafter, the defendant and three others, who are not parties here, took over the assets and constituted themselves into a partnership at will and their deed of partnership is Exhibit B -1. The object of the partnership was to exploit the cinema house called Saraswathi Theatres and Lakshmi Talkies and two films, namely, Sivalinga Sakthi and Manimekhalai. The partnership capital was Rs. 1,11,460 -10 -0. Each partner had to contribute Rs. 27,865 -2 -6. This partnership at will after reciting the terms on which the business was to be run and including a provision for the management concludes that during the time this company is conducted, if any of the partners wishes to stop away or to take a return of the share amount all the partners shall abide by the decision of the majority. This defendant apparently could not make up this amount of Rs. 27,865 -2 -6 and therefore assigned a share of that interest in the partnership and formed, what might be called, a sub -partnership with this plaintiff. This plaintiff was to contribute Rs. 5,573 -0 -6 in order to take a Fifth share of the defendant's share in the main 'partnership at will referred to. This sub -partnership agreement is Exhibit A -6.' In fact it is found that this plaintiff has attested the main partnership agreement. This document goes on to recite that this plaintiff was to contribute a fifth share of the amount to the defendant, that the plaintiff was to get profits and loss in the proportion in which he had contributed and which the defendant would get from this main partnership business, that in all these matters relating to cinema transaction the plaintiff was to conduct himself towards the defendant in the same manner in which the defendant was to conduct himself towards the three others in the main partnership business and that these two partners had together wholeheartedly effected this agreement in respect of the cinema partnership promising to abide by its terms.
(3.) BUT unfortunately, as it always happens in this temperamental cinema world, this plaintiff and the defendant were not able to get on and notice was given under Exhibit A -7 by the plaintiff to the defendant stating that he no longer desired to be a sub -partner with the defendant, and that he had terminated his relationship as a sub -partner and called upon him to return to him the sum of Rs. 5,575 -0 -6 contributed by him and render accounts.;