SRINIVASA MUDALIAR Vs. ABRAHAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the order of the District Judge of West Tanjore dismissing the petition of the petitioner herein praying that he may be impleaded as an appellant in A. S. No. 15 of 1947, which arose out of O. S. No. 206 of 1943. The petitioner is the legatee under a will executed by the appellant in A. S. No. 15 of 1947. The appellant in A. S. No. 15 of 1947 had filed a suit O. S. No. 206 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvadi, for dissolution of partnership and for accounts against one Abrahim Pillai and eight others. In the said suit the present petitioner's predecessor -in -interest who was plaintiff claimed that she was a partner in a rice mill along with defendant l in the suit, and that the partnership was started with the plaintiff and defendant 1 as partners they being entitled each to a moiety of the business, each having contributed a sum of as much as Rs. 1052/ - and odd. Defendant 1 paid the plaintiff some sundry amounts, but never divided the profits with the plaintiff in the suit. The business consisted of a rice mill with Blackston engine of 20 horse power and other accessories along with the superstructure and the land on which the superstructure stood. The learned District Munsif of Tiruvadi, who tried the suit dismissed the same with costs holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount or other relief. Against this decision the plaintiff preferred the appeal, A. S. No. 15 of 1947.

(2.) WHEN the appeal was pending, the appellant, Thaipal Anni alias Meenambal Anni, executed a will in favour of the present petitioner. Srinivasa Mudaliar, and died some time later, By the will, the said appellant in A. S. No. 15 of 1947 bequeathed the subject matter of the appeal to the petitioner. The relevant portions of the will dated 28th July 1947 are as follows:

(3.) IN the course of argument before this Court, a preliminary point was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that this civil revision petition did not lie. He contended that the proper remedy for the petitioner was to have filed an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge declaring the abatement of the appeal and also an appeal against the order declining to bring him on record as legal representative.