P.S.NARAYANA, J. - (1.) Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 102/90 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru had preferred A.S.No.955/97. 4th defendant in the said suit is 4th respondent in the Appeal. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 102/90 aforesaid also preferred appeal A.S.No. 1217/97 showing the defendants as respondents 1 to 4. Likewise, the plaintiffs in the connected suit O.S.No. 106/90 filed A.S.No. 134/99 and respondents 1 to 4 in the said appeal are defendants 1 to 4 in the said suit, The 1st defendant in the said suit is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.102/90. Likewise, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.111/94 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru preferred appeal A.S.No. 513/2003. Paddaiah, one of the parties died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Evidence was recorded in O.S.No.102/90 referred to supra and both the matters were disposed of by a Common Judgment. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru recorded the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, D.W.1 to D.W.8, the common evidence in both O.S.Nos.102/90 and 106/90, marked Exs.A-1 to A-17 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 and ultimately granted a preliminary decree to a limited extent in O.S.No.102/90 and to ascertain the future profits for three years on a separate application to be filed by the plaintiffs for the said purpose. It was further observed that while determining the future profits an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the 4th defendant to be deducted from the mesne profits and likewise the suit O.S.No.106/90 was partly decreed directing the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.22,500/- i.e., 45% share in Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of demand i.e., 11-4-1990 till the date of realisation. It is needless to say that the defendants 1 to 3 had preferred Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.102/90 only and no separate Appeal had been filed as against the Judgment and Decree made in O.S No. 106/90. It is also needless to say that common evidence was recorded in both the suits and common findings also had been recorded and the matters are disposed of by Common Judgment by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The 4th defendant in O.S.No. 102/90 had not preferred any independent Appeal evidently for the reason that he is styled to be a mediator or arbitrator ehosen by the contesting parties to the litigation. However certain allegations are made as against the said party. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.111/94 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Eluru having been unsuccessful in a suit for specific performance filed by them preferred A.S.No.5 13/2003. It appears the said matter was decided by yet another learned Judge and in the light of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1 to D.W.6 and also Exs.A-1 to A-10 and also taking into consideration the prior connected litigations O.S.Nos. 102/90 and 106/90 which appear to have been carried by way of Appeals, the learned Judge dismissed the said suit directing the parties to bear their own costs. Though O.S.No. 111/94 was disposed of by a separate Judgment, in the light of the fact that the prior suits O.S.Nos. 102/90 and 106/90 being closely concerned, the said Appeal also is being heard along with the other three connected Appeals, one Appeal filed by the contesting defendants and the other two Appeals preferred by the plaintiffs being aggrieved of decreeing the suits partly and negativing the rest of the relief prayed.
(2.) In the light of the fact that defence was taken in relation to the registration of the firm in question, an application was moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reception of additional evidence, the certified copy of the registration of M/s. Srinivasa Pisci Culture firm. The said application no doubt is being resisted by the contesting parties.
(3.) Pleadings in O.S.No.102/90; Averments made in the plaint : The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint as hereunder : The plaintiffs are permanent residents of Ankampalem village in East Godavari District and they are traditionally agriculturists. The defendants 1 to 3 are residents of Gundugolanu village in West Godavari District and they are likewise essentially farmers owning landed property in their nearby village and on account of the 2nd defendant marrying a girl from the village of Ankampalem there was wide scope for interaction between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 which ultimately ripened into one of confidence. While so, the 2nd defendant having approached the plaintiffs some time prior to 1985 mooted the idea of starting pisci culture in his fields and sought the collaboration of the plaintiffs in that venture and such a course was very lucrative and would, be for their economic betterment. Thus the plaintiffs were lured to associate themselves with the defendants 1 to 3. As the defendants 1 to 3 were having sufficient land to locate the venture as its base on their part the plaintiffs also had acquired lands detailed in plaint A Schedule, from the defendants family and the lands of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants 1 to 3 form a composite block on ground. Of course, their individual identity was intended to be kept alive and meant and intended for the use as a base for carrying on Pisci culture activity. In order to achieve their object the plaintiffs and defendnts 1 to 3 formed themselves into a partnership firm under a deed of partnership dated 2-12-1985 under the name and style 'Srinivasa Pisciculture' wherein the plaintiffs shares of profit and loss and that of the defendants 1 to 3 was 45% and 55% respectively. The plaintiffs have acquired lands mainly from the 2nd defendant. Of course, also from others in the village of Surappagudem and in this way Item 1 of the plaint A Schedule belongs to the 1st plaintiff. Item 2 belongs to the 2nd plaintiff (for the benefit of his brothers Narasimha Murthy and Satyanarayana) and Item 3 belongs to 3rd plaintiff and Item 4 of the plaint Schedule was acquired for the benefits of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 though it stands in the name of Narasimha Murthy, the brother of the 2nd plaintiff, in which the plaintiffs are having 45% share and me defendants 1 to 3 are having 55% share of interest. Besides, the partners have also obtained possession of Ac.4-00 of land covered by R.S.No.376/2 and 377/2 described in Item 7 in the plaint Schedule in the name of the said Narasimha Murthy, of course for the benefit of the partners under an agreement for sale dated 6-5-1988 for a total consideration of Rs.74,600/- having paid a sum of Rs.36,916/- towards sale consideration in part performance and the transactions would not be finalised and sale deed obtained on account of failure on the part of the vendors Mogalapu Seshagiri and Smt.Mogalapu Kesavardhini and thus acquired equitable title over the same. Items 5 and 6 of the plaint A Schedule belong to defendants 1 to 3 and all the Items of the plaint A Schedule are juxtaposed and formed into a composed block. In order to facilitate the formation of fish tanks the then existing notional boundary bunds of the fields were completely effaced on ground and therefore at present they are no physical demarcations of bunds for the lands of the plaintiff and the business activity of the partners in the pisci culture continued smoothly, the required capital having been raised mainly borrowing from Andhra Bank, Eluru in addition to contributions by the partners. Unfortunately by about the month of December 1989 when the fish catch was almost ready for marketing, disputes and differences arose among the partners i.e., defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs resulting in a crises in the running of the business and thereupon the defendants came up with a proposal for winding up the activity by resorting to mediation and the plaintiffs in order to avert loss had agreed for such a course. Then the defendants, of their own accord, finally expressed and suggested the name of the 4th defendant as a mediator for settlement of the affairs of the partnership and for winding up process of the partnership and thereupon the plaintiffs have also agreed for such a course and accordingly a deed of Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 was subscribed by the parties appointing the 4th defendant for the purposes of realisation of the then subsisting fish in the tanks and for resolving the differences of the partners and to discharge the firm debts with the realisation made by him and in case the realisations made by him were not sufficient for discharging the debts, then to realise further income by way of licensing the tanks in open auction and also to apply Rs.50,000/- for getting a registered Item 7 of plaint A Schedule which was in the possession of the partners by way of part performance all in the bona fide hope of resolving disputes among the partners and for winding up of the partnership. No doubt the 4th defendant in the capacity of a mediator took steps for the realisation of existing catch by sending the same to the usual Calcutta market and even according to him a gross sum of Rs.4,15,413/- was realised by him and expenses therefor amounted to Rs.43,122/- and thus an amount of Rs.3,72,291/- was still left in the hands of 4th defendant even by about the end of January 1990. The plaintiffs submit that even though the defendant realised amounts as stated supra and even though the 1st plaintiff had produced the accounts and made his position clear the 4th defendant went on postponing to express his views and finally when assembled on 18-3-1990 having produced a got up ante dated and purported lease deed with recitals of a rental of Rs. 1,40,000/- as if having been paid had threatened that unless the plaintiffs subscribe thereto he will not account and pay the amount realised by him and lying in his hands by the sale of catch mentioned above and the plaintiffs under those circumstances were obliged to put their signatures on the purported lease for fear of losing the amount realised by the 4th defendant. Of course, the 4th defendant however quite informally and orally by way of final settlement expressed that the defendants 1 to 3 shall have to pay a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- towards their share of liabilities to the Andhra Bank, Eluru and the 1st defendant to pay Rs.55,880-90 ps. to the said Bank and was to pay the debts due to private creditors and that he would account for the realisation made by him and if there are any debts outstanding, the 1st plaintiff shall have to pay. Basing on that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 have decided to dissolve their firm followed by a deed of dissolution dated 18-3-1990 and there remained only demarcation with boundaries by survey of the lands of the partners that were pooled apart from getting a registered deed of sale in respect of Acs.4-00 of land from the vendors, namely Sri Mogalapu Seshagiri Rao and Smt.Kesavardhini. Even after settlement of the disputes, the 4th defendant went on postponing to account for the amount lying with him and when it transpired that the 4th defendant taking advantage of his position as a mediator had obtained registered sale deeds from the vendors in favour of his kith and kin i.e., his son by name P.Rajaram Raju and his grand children by name R.Seetha Rama Raju and R.Vijayalakshmi behind the back of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were obliged to cause to send through their advocate a notice dated 11-4-1990 to the defendants and others revoking the authority given to him as he had flouted the confidence reposed in him to which the 4th defendant got sent a reply dated 3-5-1990 through his advocate with absolutely false and untenable allegations contending that he had already gave a final decision in the presence of some alleged 15 elders after enquiry and that he acted as a mediator at the instance of the plaintiffs alone when they approached him through M/s.P.Rama Raju, P.Venkata Raju, P.Venkata Raju, V.Venkata Raju and P.Subba Raju of Ryali andthat he gave a decision on 18-3-1990 in the presence of parties and elders and that as per the decision of elders and with full knowledge and concurrence of the partners three persons namely one P.Rajam Raju, P.Venkata Raju of Ryali and M.V.Ramana Rao of Gundugolanu were constituted into a committee to take a decision to lease out the fish tanks in their discretion and that the said three persons have decided to lease out the fish tanks in about Acs.46-00 to the 4th defendant alone for one year i.e., 17-3-1990 to 16-3-1991 on a rental of Rs. 1,50,000/- and that thereafter the said tank to be leased to the 1st defendant for a period of two years ending upto 30-3-1993 for a consolidated amount of Rs.2,30,000/- and accordingly a lease deed dated 17-3-1990 was executed by the partners and that he had paid Rs.1,40,000/- out of the rental of Rs.1,50,000/- to the 1st plaintiff and that he was got to pay only the balance of Rs.10,000/- before the expiry of lease and that accordingly he was put in possession of the fish tanks and that the 1st plaintiff from out of the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid an amount of Rs.1,12,860/- to defendants 1 to 3 towards their share of lease amount in the presence of some mediators and that he was a bona fide lessee entitled to remain in possession for one year and that he had invested huge amount for putting seed and feed for the maintenance of the tanks and that the 1st defendant as a lessee for two years had also paid the entire amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in advance on 7-4-1990 and the same went in as per his decision with interest for the discharge of Andhra Bank debt Eluru and that the 1st plaintiff on his part also gave a cheque for Rs.55,880/- to the Andhra Bank, Eluru for the discharge of the Bank debt and in that way the entire debt due to the Bank was wiped out and thus there was full and final settlement of the partners as per his decision except the survey of the properties after the expiry of the leases given to the 1st defendant and then to take possession of the respective lands of the partners in terms of their respective documents and that he had nothing to do with the sale deeds admittedly obtained in the names of his son and grand children while admitting that the sales were at his instance and that while admitting a total net receipt of Rs.3,72,291/- by the sale of fish a sum of Rs.50,000/- was retained by him for payment of sale consideration, stamp duty etc., for obtaining registered sale deeds in respect of Acs.4-00 of land from Mogalapu Seshagiri Rao and another and the balance of Rs.3,22,291/- was paid to the 1st plaintiff and that therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek any reliefs from him and they are bound to honour the alleged leases in his favour and in favour of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs submit that several allegations in the reply given by the 4th defendant are absolutely false and untenable. The 4th defendant having accepted mediation and having realised huge amount by sale of fish failed to act up to the expectation of the plaintiffs and there was never any hearing or enquiry except to collect information and orally expressing his opinion. The several persons cited by him in his reply as elders in action in the decision making process and particularly the alleged emergence of a committee of three persons with power to lease out fishing tanks and the alleged leases are all false and trumped up and the several elders adverted to by the 4th defendant are all his henchmen and are all his supporters and kith and kin, evidently brought in to support his unholy and unworthy conduct for grabbing the fish tanks and to appropriate himself the realisation he made by way of the sale of fish under the colour of authority given to him by the partners by way of Muchhilika while ignoring the presence of the elders like Sri Kotha Sambasiva Rao s/o. Seshayya, Sri Parvathaneni Rammohan Rao s/o. Ramadasu, and Sri Chitturi Appa Rao s/o. Somanna. The plaintiffs submit that except announcing orally his opinion as to the discharge of debts on 18-3-1990 the 4th defendant did nothing and the allegations contra that he gave an award in writing in the presence of all the partners and in the presence of 15 mediators and gave a copy to each of the partners are absolutely false and the plaintiffs are now led to bona fide believe that the 4th defendant must have got up some documents in order to support his case in collusion with defendants 1 to 3 and his henchmen. The plaintiffs submit that the alleged lease in favour of the 4th defendant was vitiated by coercion and force and they are not willing parties to such a course as submitted supra and no consideration was passed thereunder and the same was ineffective and inoperative in the eye of law and no rights accrue to the 4th defendant therefrom. The 4th defendant by virtue of his position as a mediator and in league with defendants 1 to 3 having gained access to the fishing tanks was setting up an invalid lease and his possession is therefore wrongful and that of a trespasser and as such the plaintiffs have every right to seek his ejectment from plaint Schedule properties other than Item 7 of the plaint Schedule as the same is at present under the possession of his alleged purchasers and the plaintiffs reserve their right to proceed against them. Since the 4th defendant failed to account for the realisation he made initially and retained by him, the plaintiffs also reserve their right to take appropriate steps to call for account from him by a separate suit. Averments made in the written statement of defendants 1 to 3 : The following submissions were made by the contesting defendants : Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant and they are all agriculturists and ryots of Gundugolanu Mandal of West Godavari District. The 4th defendant is a respectable ryot and a landlord and a permanent resident of Ryali of East Godavari District. The 2nd plaintiff is the junior paternal uncle of the 1st plaintiff, being the 1st plaintiff's father Sri Gullapalli Narasimha Murthy's younger brother. It is true that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 formed into a partnership firm under the name and style of Srinivasa Pisci Culture with the plaintiffs 1 to 3 having Re.0-45 ps. share and the defendants 1 to 3 having Re.0-55 ps. share and carried on fish business for sometime. The 4th defendant had nothing to with the fish business carried on by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 3 during the subsistence of the said partnership. The 1st plaintiff was the Managing Partner. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession of Items 1 to 3 of the plaint A Schedule and for division and for recovery of possession of plaintiffs 45% share of extent in Item 4 of the plaint A Schedule and for recovery of possession of plaintiffs 45% share of extent in Item 8 of the plaint A Schedule and for recovery of possession of plaintiffs 45% share in Items 1 to 3 of the B Schedule or for alternative reliefs, is clearly misconceived and is not maintainable in law for various reasons and in view of the facts and circumstances narrated infra the plaintiffs had filed the suit for possession and partition and for other ancillary reliefs making several false and untenable allegations and they are not entitled to any of the reliefs. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.836/90 for appointment of a Receiver and I.A.No. 1801/90 for interim injunction. The defendants 1 to 3 and the 4th defendant filed their counters in both the applications and contested the same. The Hon'ble Court after marking several documents filed on behalf of the defendants as Exs.B-1 to B-27 and after an elaborate enquiry dismissed both the applications by order dated 26-10-1990. The plaintiffs have absolutely no prima facie case muchless a strong prima facie case or balance of convenience for seeking the appointment of a Receiver or any temporary injunction. The plaintiffs carried the matter in Appeal to the Hon'ble High Court in C.M.A.No.1476/90 and it is being contested. Serious differences and disputes arose between the partners of M/s.Srinivasa Pisci Culture on account of mismanagement and misappropriation of large funds by the 1st plaintiff (Managing Partner) and plaintiffs 2 and 3 and they were referred to the arbitration of the 4th defendant. All the partners together executed the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 in favour of the 4th defendant and fully empowered him to settle all the disputes and also to lease out the tanks as per his discretion and utilise the proceeds for discharge of the firm's debts. The 4th defendant enquired into the disputes in the presence of all the partners and several other elders and mediators interested in both 1he parties and acted honestly and fairly in the bona fide discharge of his duties and obligations as per the Muchhilika. The 4th defendant gave his decision and award and it was accepted by all the parties concerned and acted upon and fully given effect to. There is absolutely no secrecy or any privacy in the enquiry made by the 4th defendant/arbitrator and it was all in the open in the presence and in the knowledge of all the partners/plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. The allegations to the contrary are all false and concocted with ulterior and wrongful motives. The Managing Partner had not maintained any accounts of the firm, but he simply submitted some small slips of paper without any details or particulars. The firm sustained a huge loss of Rs.3,70,003-67 ps. as found and ascertained by the mediator in the presence of all the parties and other elders. All the partners had agreed that the firm should be closed, dissolved and wound up. The debts of the firm of Andhra Bank and others had to be discharged. In fact, all the parties by their Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 empowered the mediators to lease out the tanks as per the discretion of the mediators and utilise the proceeds for discharge of the debts. Nobody was willing to come forward to bid for taking the tanks for lease. In that situation, all the elders, with the full knowledge and concurrence of the partners, authorised and empowered three of them, namely (1) Sri Penumatcha Rajam Raju, (2) Sri Percherla Venkatraju of Ryali and (3) Sri M.V. Ramanarao of Gundugolanu to lease out the fish tanks using their discretion. Accordingly the aforesaid three ciders decided : (1) that the fish tanks in about Acs.46-00 should be leased out to the 4th defendant for one year i.e., from 17-3-1990 to 16-3-1991 on a rental of Rs.1,50,000/-; (2) that thereafter the fish tanks should be leased out to Sri Nekkanti Paddayya, son of late Paddayya, for a period of two years i.e., from 30-3-1991 to 30-3-1993 for a consolidated amount of Rs.2,30,000/-; and they were so leased out. Accordingly, a lease deed dated 17-3-1990 was executed by (1) Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana (Managing Partner), (20 Nekkanti Pullayya, (30 Gullapalli Konayya, (4) Karuturi Buli Venkayya, (5) Nekkanti Venkateswararao, (6) Nekkanti Sreeramakrishna, in favour of the 4th defendant and it was duly attested by (1) Gullapalli Narasimhamurthy, (2) Penmatsa Rajamraju, (3) Percherla Satyanarayana Raju, (4) Polavarapu Prasanna Venkata Ramanjaneyulu, (5) Begesina Satyanarayana Raju and (6) M.Ramanarao, and the said lease was scribed by Manepalli Nageswararao. The 4th defendant in spite of his disinclination and unwillingness was persuaded and prevailed upon to accept and take the tanks on lease for one year as advised and decided by the aforesaid elders and mediators. The 4th defendant at the time of execution of the said lease deed dated 17-3-1990 for one year in his favour paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to Sri Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana (Managing Partner) and the said fact of payment of Rs. 1,40,000/- had also been mentioned in the lease deed. The 4th defendant was to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- before the expiry of the lease. The allegations that the 4th defendant collected about Rs.4,15,429/- and the said amount was lying with him. The allegation that on receipt of huge amounts and on seeking the fish tanks he developed an evil idea of grabbing at the properties and in pursuance of his illegal idea by keeping the huge amount realised by the sale of fish and without clearing the debts, obtained a lease deed in his favour in respect of the fish tanks for one year at a rent of Rs.1,50,000/- are all false and concocted. It is equally false and untenable to state that the 4th defendant when questioned by the Managing Partner and others was very reluctant to answer and to account for the same and that the 4th defendant threatened that he would appropriate the entire amount remaining in his hands for himself. There is absolutely no truth or any substance in the further allegations that the Managing Partner and others, having no other go, were forced to sign on the lease deed on 18-3-1990 with past date. These and other allegations were invented by them in a vain bid and a crude attempt to avoid and wriggle out of their lawful acts and transactions entered into with full knowledge and consent. The lease deed in favour of the 4th defendant was executed by all the partners on 17-3-1990 and not on 18-3-1990 as alleged. The 4th defendant paid Rs. 1,40,000/- out of the lease amount to the Managing Partner. As per the settlement of accounts effected by the arbitrator in the presence of all parties it was found that there was misappropriation of partnership funds to the extent of Rs.2,05,200/- for which Re.0-45 ps. shareholders were held liable and therefore they were directed to pay and reimburse the Re.0-55 ps. share holders to the extent of their share. Accordingly the Re.0-45 ps. share holders became liable to pay Rs. 1,12,860/- to the Re.0-55 ps. share holders towards reimbursement of the misappropriated funds. The Managing Partner Sri Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana paid the said amount of Rs. 1,12,860/- to Sri Nekkanti Paddayya and two others representing the Re.0-55 ps. share out of the lease amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- paid by the 4th defendant to him in pursuance of the lease for one year in favour of the 4th defendant and the said payment of Ps. 1,12,860/- was made to Re.0-55 ps. share holders in the presence of mediators. The 4th defendant was put in possession of the fish tanks in pursuance of the lease dated 17-3-1990 for one year. The 4th defendant was a bona fide lessee of the fish tanks and he is entitled to remain in possession for one year as per the terms of the lease deed and the Managing Partner and others have no manner of right to interfere with the 4th defendant's possession and enjoyment of the tanks as such lessee. The 4th defendant invested large amount for putting seed, feed and for maintenance of the tanks and for making other incidental expenses. On the expiry of one year lease in favour of the 4th defendant, the 1st defendant is entitled to take possession and continue in possession of the tanks for a period of two years till the end of March 1993 in pursuance of the decision of the elders and mediators and the plaintiffs have no right to complain. The 1st defendant had already paid the lease amount of Rs.2,30,000/- for the subsequent two year period through his son the 2nd defendant by depositing the said amount with interest into Andhra Bank, Ramachandraraopet, Eluru towards discharge of the Bank dues of the firm. By common consent of all the parties the partnership was dissolved and a Dissolution of Partnership letter was duly executed on 18-3-1990 by all the partners signing the same and it was duly attested by (1) Sri Gullapalli Narasimha Murthy, (2) Penmatsa Rajam Raju, (3) Percherla Satyanarayana Raju, (4) Polavarapu Prasanna Venkata Ramanjaneyulu (son-in-law of Sri Gullapalli Narasimha Murthy), (5) Vegesina Satyanarayana Raju and (6) M.V. Ramanarao, and it was scribed by Sri Manepalli Nageswararao. There was absolutely no secrecy or privacy about the proceedings and the transactions and they were all conducted openly and fairly in the presence of all the parties and the elders. The 4th defendant acted bona fide in accordance with the terms of the Muchhilika and gave his decision honestly and fairly to the best of his abilities. All the parties were fully aware of the decision and accepted it and acted upon it and the Managing Partner and others have no right to contend otherwise. In pursuance of the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 the 4th defendant in the presence of the representatives of both the rival groups (Re.0.45 ps. share holders and the Re.0-55 ps. share holders) got the fish in the tanks caught and exported the same to Howrah market in five lorries. Sri Gullapalli Konayya and Sri Nekkanti Sriramakrishna, along with Sri M.V.Ramanarao of Gundugolanu, went to Howrah and got the fish marketed there. Sri Gullapalli Konayya sent demand drafts from Calcutta to Andhra Bank, Ryali in the name of the 4th defendant and all the demand drafts sent by him were duly credited in the 4th defendant's savings A/c.2320 and they had all been duly accounted for. A total amount of Rs.3,80,178/- by way of demand drafts and Rs. 8,259/- by cash, in all Rs.3,88,437/- was received by the 4th defendant towards the last catch of the fish after meeting all expenses (including Rs.2070/- paid by Sri Kolanuwada Jagapathiraju towards reimbursement of lorry freight in respect of his fish). The 4th defendant incurred a total amount of Rs.43,122/- on all the five lorries towards lorry advance, transport, ice, packing and labour charges. Thus a net amount of Rs.3,72,291/- was realised by the sale of fish. All the pattis, details and other particulars of the demand drafts etc., were prepared by Sri Gullapalli Konayya in his own hand and given to the 4th defendant and the 4th defendant acted on the basis of the said figures and particulars furnished by him. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was deducted from the amount of Rs.3,72,291/- towards balance sale consideration with interest, stamp duty, expenses of registration for obtaining sale deeds from Sri Mogalapu Seshagirirao and Smt..Mogalapu Kesavardhani, w/o. Satyanarayana. The balance amount of Rs.3,22,291/- was paid by the 4th defendant to the Managing Partner Sri Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana as follows: (1)Rs.3,20,000/- by withdrawing the said amount from Andhra Bank, Ryali from Savings A/c.No.2320 on 19-3-1990 and (2)By payment of cash of Rs.2291/- at the residence of the 4th defendant at Ryali in the presence of Sri Penmatsa Rajamraju. Sri Nekkanti Paddayya, the lessee for the subsequent two year period (from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1993) paid the entire lease amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in advance on 7-4-1990 as per the decision of the arbitrator the said amount of Rs.2,30,000/- with interest of Rs.472-60 ps. for the period 1-4-1990 to 7-4-1990, totalling Rs.2,30,472-60 ps. was paid by Sri Nekkanti Venkateswararao on behalf of his father Pandayya to Andhra Bank, Eluru in discharge of the firm's liability to the Bank. On the same day i.e., on 7-4-1990 the Managing Partner Sri Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana gave a cheque for Rs.55,880-90 ps. to Andhra Bank, Eluru towards discharge of the Bank loan. Thus the entire loan amount due to Andhra Bank, Eluru with interest was completely discharged by the aforesaid two payments of Rs.2,30,472-60 ps. and Rs.55,880-90 ps. making a total payment of Rs.2,86,353-50 ps. Andhra Bank, Eluru gave a clearance certificate and returned the title deeds of the parties. There was a full and final settlement of all the accounts of the partnership and all disputes. The Re.0-45 ps. share holders and the Re.0-55 ps. share holders obtained copies of the final settlement of account and nothing was left outstanding. Both parties were directed as per the decision of the arbitrator to get the lands surveyed after 1-4-1993 on the expiry of the lease to Nekkanti Paddayya and take possession of their respective lands as per their respective documents and put up bunds then. To the registered notice dated 11-4-1990 got issued by the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 3 sent a reply dated 19-5-1990 through their Advocate refuting the flash and untenable claims and contentions of the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 to 3 pray that the averments of the reply notice dated 19-5-1990 and the further reply dated 2-6-1990 may kindly be read as part of this statement for details. The allegations in para-13 of the plaint are false and untenable. It is utterly false and untenable to state that the 4th defendant having accepted mediation and having realised huge amounts by sale of fish, failed to act up to the expectations of the plaintiffs. There was never any hearing or enquiry except to collect information and orally express his opinion. Several elders adverted to by the 4th defendant were all his henchmen and are all his supporters or kith and kin evidently brought to support his unholy and unworthy conduct for grabbing the fish tanks and to appropriate for himself the realisations made by him by way of sale of fish under the colour of authority given to him by the partners by way of Muchhilika and so forth are not at all true. These and other allegations in para-13 of the plaint are patently false, highly derogatory to the reputation and integrity of the 4th defendant and highly defamatory and malicious in the extreme. There is absolutely no truth or any substance in the further allegations that the 4th defendant by virtue of his position as the mediator and in league with defendants 1 to 3 is setting up an invalid lease and his possession is wrongful and that of a trespasser. The plaintiffs made several unwarranted and false allegations of collusion against defendants 1 to 3 and there is absolutely no truth or substance in any of them. The allegations in para-14 of the plaint are false and untenable. The 4th defendant had always acted falsely and honestly in the bona fide discharge of his duties and responsibilities as a mediator and as an arbitrator and in accordance with the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 executed by all the parties. The allegations in para-14 of the plaint that the 4th defendant had flouted the authority given to him and failed to perform h'is duties in accordance with natural justice and that he put forth a false case of settlement of disputes by him and set up a false case of lease to his selfish advantage are all false and concocted. It is also not true or correct to state that the 4th defendant in the position of a trustee/mediator, liable to render account to the plaintiffs or that the 4th defendant misused his position in any manner in collusion with the other defendants. The 4th defendant was not at all a trustee and he had absolutely no liability to render account. All the disputes between the partners had been fully and finally settled to the satisfaction of all the concerned and the arbitration and decision of the 4th defendant was accepted and acted upon by all the parties. The plaintiffs apparently changed their mind after the whole thing was over and had resorted to the filing of the suit with utterly false and frivolous allegations to make a wrongful gain and unsettle the whole thing. The 4th defendant had been a bona fide lessee of the fish tanks of the plaint Schedule items 1 to 6 and 8 of an extent of Acs.42-00 (excluding Item 7 of an extent of Acs.4-00). The 4th defendant had been put in possession of the above fish tanks with full knowledge and consent as a lessee for one year upto the end of March 1991 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of which the 4th defendant had already paid Rs. 1,40,000/- in advance to the Managing Partner Sri Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana in the presence of all the mediators. Item 7 of the plaint Schedule property belongs to (1) Sri Percherla Rajam Raju, (2) Sri Rudraraju Seetharama Raju and (3) Smt.Rudraraju Vijayalakshmi who purchased them under two separate registered sale deeds dated 9-4-1990 executed by Sri Mogalapu Seshagirirao and Smt..Mogalapu Kesavardhani for valuable consideration and the said vendees had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs had no right to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the third parties in respect of Item 7. The 1st plaintiff Managing Partner misappropriated large funds of the firm ana with the firm monies collusively and fraudulently obtained an agreement and a sale deed in the name of his father late Gullapalli Narasimha Murthy with an oblique motive. As per the decision of the arbitration the Re.0-45 ps. share holders were directed to reimburse the extent for the Re.0-55 ps. share holders and execute proper documents in their favour, with the consent and concurrence of defendants 1 to 3. Sri Mogalapu Seshagirirao and Smt..Mogalapu Kesavardhini executed two separate sale deeds dated 9-4-1990 and registered them in favour of Sri Percherla Rajamraju, Sri Rudraraju Sitaramaraju and Smt..Rudraraju Vijayalakshmi in respect of Item 7 of the plaint Schedule. The lease to the 4th defendant for one year and the lease lor the subsequent two year period in favour of the 1st defendant was for the purposes of agriculture and the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956 are applicable to the facts of the case. The 1st defendant is entitled to immediate possession of the fish tanks. On the expiry of the 4th defendant's one year lease the 1st defendant is entitled to continue in possession and enjoyment of the fish tanks for two year period to the end of March 1993 inasmuch as he had already paid the lease amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in advance. The 1st defendant is entitled to protection of his tenancy rights in the suit lands and the plaintiffs had no right to interfere with his right. The suit as framed is not maintainable. The plaintiffs and other partners having granted lease of the fish tanks are entitled to file the suit for possession or partition or for other reliefs. The 4th defendant can only be evicted in due course of law. There is absolutely no cause of action for the suit. The cause of action as alleged in para-15 of the plaint is neither true nor correct. No cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs at any of the times mentioned in the plaint. The defendants 1 to 3 denied all other allegations in the plaint not specifically traversed or admitted. The plaintiffs are bound to establish the truth or validity of the same. There is no relief or reliefs which the plaintiffs can claim or obtain against these defendants. The 4th defendant is not a necessary or proper party to the suit. The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit for plaint Schedule and partition of the plaint Schedule items without taking appropriate legal steps for cancellation and revocation of the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 and the arbitration proceedings. The plaint and the three Schedules and the sketch appended to the plaint are not true and correct. The description of the properties is incorrect and misleading, The plaintiffs having executed the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 and having fully accepted the award and the decision of the arbitrator and having dissolved the firm and having granted the lease of the fish tanks are clearly estopped from filing the suit. The defendants 1 to 3 pray that the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990, the award and the decision of the arbitrator dated 16-3-1990, the lease dated 17-3-1990 and the firm dissolution letter dated 18-3-1990 may be read as part of the pleading for elucidation of all the facts and circumstances. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in their individual capacity but in para-6 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 formed themselves into a partnership firm by and under a Deed of Partnership dated 2-12-1985 under the name and style of 'Srinivasa Pisci Culture'. The plaintiffs had purposely omitted to file the alleged partnership deed dated 2-12-1985. It was an unregistered firm and the plaintiffs are not entitled to file the suit in their individual capacity and the suit is liable to be dismissed on the simple ground of non-registration of the suit firm. The suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit without taking appropriate proceedings for cancellation of the Muchhilika and the award. The plaint allegations clearly disclose that the plaintiffs were fully aware of all the proceedings before the arbitrator and several elders and mediators and the award of the arbitrator and of the leases granted in favour of the 4th defendant and the 1st defendant. The suit is not maintainable in law. The defendants 1 to 3 pray therefore pray that the suit may be dismissed with costs. Averments made in the written statement of 4th defendant : The averments made in the written statement of the 4th defendant/arbitrator are as hereunder : The material allegations in the plaint are not true, valid and binding on this defendant. The suit is utterly devoid of bona fides and is not maintainable in law. The 2nd plaintiff is the junior paternal uncle of the 1st plaintiff being the 1st plaintiff's father Sri Gollapalli Narasimha Murthy's younger brother. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is a ryot and landlord and a permanent resident of Ryali in East Godavari District. It is true that the plaintiffs and the defendants formed themselves into a partnership firm under the name and style of 'Srinivasa Pisci Culture' with the plaintiffs 1 to 3 having Re.0-45 paise share and the defendants with Re.0-55 paisc share and carried on fish business for some time. The 4th defendant hud nothing to do and had no manner of interest in the fish business carried on by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 3 during the subsistence of the said partnership. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession of Items 1 to 3 of the plaint A Schedule and for division and for recovery of possession of plaintiffs 45% share of extent in Item 4 of the plaint A Schedule and for recovery of possession of plaintiffs 45% share of extent in Item 8 of the plaint A Schedule and for recovery of possession of plaintiffs 45% share in Items 1 to 3 of the B-Schedule or for alternative reliefs is clearly misconceived and is not maintainable in law for various reasons and in view of the facts and circumstances and the plaintiffs filed the suit for possession and partition and for other ancillary reliefs making several false and untenable allegations and they are not entitled to any of the reliefs. Along with the suit the plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.836/90 for appointment of a Receiver and I.A.No.1601/90 for an interim injunction. The 4th defendant filed counter in both the applications and contested them. The Hon'ble Court after marking several documents filed on behalf of the defendants as Exs.B-1 to B-27 and after an elaborate enquiry dismissed both the applications by order dated 26-10-1990. The plaintiffs have absolutely no prima facie case muchless a strong prima facie case or balance of convenience for seeking the appointment of a Receiver or any temporary injunction. The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble High Court in C.M.A.No. 1478/90 and it is being contested. Serious differences and disputes arose between the partners of M/s.Srinivasa Pisci Culture on account of mismanagement and misappropriation of large funds by the 1st plaintiff (Managing Partner) and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and they were referred to the arbitration of the 4th defendant. All the partners together executed the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 in favour of the 4th defendant and fully empowered him to settle all the disputes and also to lease out the tanks as per his discretion and utilise the proceeds for discharge of the firm's debts. The 4th defendant enquired into the disputes in the presence of all the partners and several other elders and mediators interested in both the parties and acted honestly and fairly in the bona fide discharge of his duties and obligations as per the Muchhilika. The 4th defendant gave his decision and award and it was accepted by all the parties concerned and acted upon and fully given effect to. There is absolutely no secrecy or any privacy in the enquiry made by the 4th defendant (arbitrator) and it was all in the open in the presence and to the knowledge of all the partners/plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. The allegations to the contrary are all false and concocted with ulterior and wrongful motives. The Managing Partner had not maintained any accounts of the firm but he simply submitted some small slips of paper without any details or particulars. The firm sustained a huge loss of Rs.3,70,003-67 ps. as found and ascertained by the mediator in the presence of all the parties and other elders. All the partners agreed that the firm should be closed, dissolved and wound up. The debts of the firm to Andhra Bank and others had to be discharged. In fact all the parties by their Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 empowered the mediators to lease out the tanks as per the discretion of the mediators and utilise the proceeds for the discharge of the debts. Nobody was willing to come forward to bid for taking the tanks on lease. In that situation, all the elders, with the full knowledge and concurrence of the partners authorised and empowered three of them, namely (1) Sri Penmetcha Rajam Raju, (2) Sri Percherla Venkatraju of Ryali and (30 Sri M.V. Ramanarao of Gundugolanu, to lease out the fish tanks using their discretion. Accordingly the aforesaid three elders decided as follows : (1) that the fish tanks in about Acs.46-00 should be leased out to the 4th defendant for one year i.e., from 17-3-1990 to 16-3-1991 on a rental of Rs.1,50,000/-; (2) that thereafter the fish tanks should be leased out to Sri Nekkanti Paddayya s/o. late Paddayya for a period of two years i.e., from 30-3-1991 to 30-3-1993 for a consolidated amount of Rs.2,30,000/-. Accordingly the fish tanks were leased out and a lease deed dated 17-3-1990 was executed by (1) Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana (Managing Partner), (2) Nekkanti Pullayya,(3) Gullapalli Konayya, (4) Karuturi Buli Venkayya, (5) Nekkanti Venkateswararao and (6) Nekkanti Sreeramakrishna in favour of the 4th defendant and it was duly attested by (1) Gullapalli Narasimhamurthy, (2) Penmatsa Rajamraju, (3) Percherla Satyanarayana Raju, (4) Polavarapu Prasanna Venkata Ramanjaneyulu, (5) Vegesina Satyanarayana Raju and (6) M.Ramanarao. The said lease was scribed by Manepalli Nageswararao. The 4th defendant in spite of his disinclination and unwillingness was persuaded and prevailed upon to accept and take the tanks on lease for one year as advised and decided by the aforesaid elders and mediators. The 4th defendant at the time of execution of the said lease deed dated 17-3-1990 for one year in his favour paid a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- to Sri Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana (Managing Partner) and the said fact of payment of Rs. 1,40,000/- had also been mentioned in the lease deed. The 4th defendant was to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- before the expiry of the lease. The allegations that the 4th defendant collected about Rs.4,15,429/-, that the said amount was lying with him, that on receipt of huge amounts and on seeing the properties, the 4th defendant in pursuance of his illegal idea by keeping the huge amount realised by the sale of fish and without clearing the debts obtained a lease deed in his favour in respect of the fish tanks for one year at a rent of Rs.1,50,000/- are all false and concocted. It is equally false and untenable to state that the 4th defendant when questioned by the Managing Partner and others was very reluctant to answer and to account for the same and that the 4th defendant threatened that he would appropriate the entire amount remaining in his hands for himself. There is absolutely no truth or any substance in the further allegations that the Managing Partner and others having no other go were forced to sign on the lease deed on 18-3-1990 with past date. These and other allegations are invented by them in a vain and a crude attempt to avoid and wriggle out of their lawful acts and transactions entered into with full knowledge and consent. The lease deed in favour of the 4th defendant was executed by all the parties on 17-3-1990 and not on 18-3-1990 as alleged. The 4th defendant paid Rs.1,40,000/- out of the lease amount to the Managing Partner. As per the settlement of accounts executed by the arbitrator in the presence of all the parties it was found that there was misappropriation of partnership funds to the extent of Rs.2,05,200/- for which the Re.0-45 ps. share holders were held liable and therefore they were directed to pay and reimburse the Re.0-55 ps. share holders to the extent of their share. Accordingly the Re.0-45 ps. share holders became liable to pay Rs.1,12,860/- to Re.0-55 ps. share holders towards reimbursement of the misappropriated funds. The Managing Partner Sri Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana paid the said amount of Rs.1,12,860/- to Sri Nekkanti Paddayya and two others representing the Re.0-55 ps. share out of the lease amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the 4th defendant to him in pursuance of the lease for one year in favour of the 4th defendant and the said amount of Rs.1,12,860/- was made to Re.0-55 ps. share holders in the presence of the fish tanks in pursuance of the lease dated 17-3-1990 for one year. The 4th defendant was a bona fide lessee of the fish tanks and he is entitled to remain in possession for one year as per the terms of the lease deed and the Managing Partner and others had no manner of right to interfere with the 4th defendant's possession and enjoyment of the tanks as such lessee. The 4th defendant had invested huge amounts for putting seed, feed and for maintenance of the tanks and for meeting other incidental expenses. By common consent of all the parties, the partnership was dissolved and a dissolution of partnership letter was duly executed on 18-3-1990 by all the partners signing the same and it was duly attested by (1) Sri Gullapalli Narasimha Murthy, (2) Penmetsa Rajam Raju, (3) Percherla Satyanarayana Raju, (4) Polavarapu Prasanna Venkata Ramanjaneyulu (son-in-law of Sri Gullapalli Narasimha Murthy), (5) Vegesina Satyanarayana Raju, (6) M.V. Ramanarao and it was scribed by Sri Manepalli Nageswararao. There was absolutely no secrecy or privacy about the proceedings and the transactions and they were all conducted openly and fairly in the presence of all the parties and the elders. The 4th defendant acted bona fide in accordance with the terms of the Muchhilika and gave his decision honestly and fairly to the best of his abilities. All the parties were fully aware of the decision and accepted it and acted upon it and the Managing Partner and others had no right to contend otherwise. In pursuance of the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 the 4th defendant in the presence of the representatives of both the rival groups (Re.0-45 ps. share holders and the Re.0-55 ps. share holders) got the fish in the tanks caught and exported the same to Howrah Market in five lorries. Sri Gullapalli Konayya and Sri Nekkanti Sriramakrishna along with Sri M.V. Ramahnarao of Gundugolanu went to Howrah and got the fish marketed there. Sri Gullapalli Konayya sent demand drafts from Calcutta to Andhra Bank, Ryali in the name of the 4th defendant and all the demand drafts sent by him were duly credited in the 4th defendant's Savings A/c.No.2326 and they had all been duly accounted for. A total amount of Rs.3,80,178/- by way of demand drafts and Rs.8259/- by cash, in all Rs.3,88,437/- were received by the 4th defendant towards net sale proceeds of the fish. In addition, the 4th defendant also realised a sum of Rs.26,976/- towards the last catch of the fish after meeting all the expenses (including Rs.2070/- paid by Sri Kolunuwada Jagapathiraju towards reimbursement of lorry freight in respect of his fish). The 4th defendant incurred a total amount of Rs.43,122/- on all the five lorries towards lorry advance, transport, ice, packing and labour charges. Thus a net amount of Rs.3,72,291/- was realised by sale of the fish. All the pattis, details and other particulars of the demand drafts etc., were prepared by Sri Gullapalli Konayya in his own hand and given to the 4th defendant and the 4th defendant acted on the basis of the said figures and particulars furnished by him. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was deducted from the amount of Rs.3,72,291/- towards balance sale consideration with interest, stamp duty, expenses of registration for obtaining sale deeds from Sri Mogalapu Seshagirirao and Smt. Mogalapu Kesavardhani, w/o. Suryanarayana. The balance amount of Rs.3,22,291/- was paid by the 4th defendant to the Managing Partner Sri Guliapalli Venkata Suryanarayana as follows : (1)Rs.3,20,000/- by withdrawing the said amount from Andhra Bank, Ryali from Savings A/c.No.2320 on 19-3-1990; and (2)by payment of cash of Rs.2291/- at the residence of the 4th defendant at Ryali in the presence of Sri Penmetsa Rajamraju. Sri Nekkanti Paddayya, the lessee for the subsequent two year period (from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1993) paid the entire lease amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in advance on 7-4-1990 as per the decision of the arbitrator and the said amount of Rs.2,30,000/- with interest of Rs.472-60 ps. for the period 1-4-1990 to 7-4-1990 totalling Rs.2,30,472-60 ps. was paid by Sri Nekkanti Venkateswararao on behalf of his father Paddayya to Andhra Bank, Eluru in discharge of the firm's liability to the Bank. On the same day i.e., on 7-4-1990, the Managing Partner Sri Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana gave a cheque for Rs.55,880-90 ps. to Andhra Bank, Eluru towards discharge of the Bank loan. Thus the entire lease amount due to Andhra Bank, Eluru with interest was completely discharged by the aforesaid two payments of Rs.2,30,472-60 ps. and Rs.55,880-90 ps. making a total payment of Rs.2,86,353-30 ps. Andhra Bank, Eluru gave a clearance certificate and returned the title deeds of the parties. There was a full and final settlement of all the accounts of the partnership and all disputes. The Re.0-45 ps. share holders and the Re.0-55 ps. share holders obtained copies of the final settlement of account and nothing was left outstanding. Both the parties were directed as per the decision of the arbitrator to get the lands surveyed after 1-4-1993 on the expiry of the lease to Nekkanti Paddayya and take possession of their respective lands as per their respective documents and put up bunds then. The 1st plaintiff and four others got issued a registered notice dated 11-4-1990 to the 4th defendant and others with utterly false and contentious allegations. The 4th defendant sent a reply dated 5-5-1990 through his Advocate refuting the false and untenable claims and contentions of the plaintiffs and their supporters. The averments of the said reply notice dated 9-5-1990 may kindly be read as part of this statement for an elucidation of the facts and other details. The 4th defendant sent a further reply notice dated 2-6-1990 as a rejoinder to the reply registered notice dated 23-5-1990 and the other notice dated 24-5-1990 sent on behalf of Sri Gullapalli Konayya and three others through their Advocate. The allegations in para-13 of the plaint are false and untenable. It is utterly false and untenable to state that the 4th defendant having accepted mediation and having realised huge amounts by sale of fish failed to act up to the expectations of the plaintiffs that there was never any hearing or enquiry except to collect information and orally express his opinion, that several elders adverted to by the 4th defendant are all his henchmen and are all his supporters or kith and kin evidently brought to support his unholy and unworthy conduct for grabbing the fish tanks and to appropriate for himself the realisation made by him by way of sale of fish under the colour of authority given to him by the partners by way of Muchhilika and so forth are not at all true. These and other allegations in para-13 of the plaint are patently false, highly derogatory to the reputation and integrity of the 4th defendant and highly defamatory and malicious in the extreme. There is absolutely no truth or any substance in the further allegations that the 4th defendant by virtue of his position as the mediator and in league with defendants 1 to 3 is setting up an invalid lease and that his possession is wrongful and that of a trespasser. The allegations in para-14 of the plaint are false and untenable. The 4th defendant had always acted fairly and honestly in the bona fide discharge of his duties and responsibilities as a mediator and as an arbitrator and in accordance with the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 executed by all the parties. The allegations in para-14 of the plaint that the 4th defendant had flouted the authority given to him and failed to perform his duties in accordance with natural justice and that he put forth a false case of settlement of disputes by him and set up a false case of lease to his selfish advantage are all false and concocted. It is also not true or correct to state that the 4th defendant in the position of a trustee/mediator is liable to render an account to the plaintiffs or that the 4th defendant misused his position in any manner in collusion with the other defendants. The 4th defendant is not at all a trustee and he had absolutely no liability to render the account. All the disputes between the partners had been fully and finally settled to the satisfaction of all the concerned and the arbitration and decision of the 4th defendant was accepted and acted upon by all the parties. The plaintiffs apparently changed their mind after the whole thing was over and had resorted to the filing of the suit with utterly false and frivolous allegations to make a wrongful gain and unsettle the whole thing. The 4th defendant had been a bona fide lessee of the fish tanks of the plaint Schedule Items 1 to 6 and 8 of an extent of Acs.42-00 (excluding Item 7 of an extent of Acs.4-00). The 4th defendant had been put in possession of the above fish tanks with full knowledge and consent as a lessee for one year upto the end of March 1991 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- out of which the 4th defendant had already paid Rs.1,40,000/- in advance to the Managing Partners Sri Gullapalli Venkata Suryanarayana in the presence of all the mediators. Item 7 of the plaint Schedule property belongs to (1) Sri Percherla Rajam Raju, (2) Sri Rudraraju Seetharama Raju and (3) Smt..Rudraraju Viiayalakshmi who purchased them under two separate registered sale deeds dated 9-4-1990 executed by Sri Mogalapu Seshagirirao and Smt.Mogalapu Kesavardhani for valuable consideration and the said vendees had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs had no right to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of third parties in respect of Item 7. The 4th defendant had been in possession of the fish tanks in an extent of Acs.42-00 (excluding Item 7) and he had already invested about Rs.2,25,000/- towards additional seed feed, establishment and maintenance charges. The plaintiffs and all the other partners having granted lease of the tanks to the 4th defendant for one year and having received payment of Rs. 1,40,000/- out of the lease amount are not entitled to interfere in any manner with the 4th defendant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the fish tanks during the subsistence of the lease. The 4th defendant is a bona fide lessee for valuable consideration and he is entitled to be protected in his possession and enjoyment of the fish tanks and the plaintiffs are estopped from disputing or questioning the 4th defendant's rights in any manner whatsoever. The 4th defendant hereby denies the truth and validity of all the other allegations in the plaint not specifically traversed or referred to. There is absolutely no loss or any injury to the plaintiffs or to the plaint Schedule property. The 4th defendant is in possession of the fish tanks of an extent of Acs.42-00, excluding the extent of Acs.4-00 covered by Item 7 of A Schedule of the plaint. The 4th defendant had already paid Rs.1,40,000/- as stated above and he is entitled to proportionate remission and reduction of rent in respect of the said Acs.4-00 of land covered by Item 7. The 4th defendant had already incurred huge expenditure for putting seed and feed and for maintenance and he is entitled to catch the fish before the expiry of his lease. The lease to the 4th defendant was for the purposes of agriculture and the provisions of A.P. Tenancy Act 1956 are applicable to the facts of the case. The 4th defendant is entitled to protection of his tenancy rights in the suit lands and the plaintiffs have no right to dispossess him or interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment as a bona fide tenant. The suit as framed is not maintainable. The plaintiffs and the other partners having granted lease of the fish tanks are not entitled to file the suit for possession or partition or for other reliefs. The 4th defendant can only be evicted in due course of law. There is absolutely no cause of action for the suit. The cause of action as alleged in para-15 of the plaint is neither true nor correct. No cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs at any of the times mentioned in the plaint. The 4th defendant denies all other allegeations in the plaint not specifically traversed or admitted and the plaintiffs are bound to establish the truth or validity of the same. There is no relief or reliefs which the plaintiffs can claim or obtain against the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant is not a necessary or proper party to the suit. The suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. The plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit for possession and partition of the plaint Schedule items without taking appropriate legal steps for cancellation and revocation of the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 and the arbitration proceedings. The plaint A and B Schedules and the sketch appended to the plaint are not true and correct. The description of the properties is incorrect and misleading. The plaintiffs having executed the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990 and having fully accepted the award and the decision of the arbitrator and having dissolved the firm and having granted the lease of the fish tanks are clearly estopped from filing the suit. The 4th defendant prays that the Muchhilika dated 7-1-1990, the award and the decision of the arbitrator dated 16-3-1990, the lease dated 17-3-1990 and the firm dissolution letter dated 18-3-1990 may kindly be read as part of this pleading for an elucidation of all the facts and circumstances. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the suit in their individual capacity but in para-6 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 formed themselves into a partnership firm by and under a deed of partnership dated 2-12-1985 under the name and style of 'Srinivasa Pisci Culture'. The plaintiffs had purposely omitted to file the alleged partnership deed dated 2-12-1985. It is an unregistered firm and the plaintiffs are not entitled to file the suit in their individual capacity and the suit is liable to be dismissed on the simple ground of non-registration of the suit firm. The 4th defendant therefore prays that the suit may be dismissed with costs.;