MOHD LAIQUIDDIN Vs. KAMALA DEV MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 9th of April, 2002 passed in second appeal Nos. 1048 & 1050 of 2001 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by which the High Court had partly allowed the appeals and modified the order dated 17th of October, 2001 of the First Appellate Court, which affirmed the order of the Trial Court decreeing the suit for dissolution of partnership firm and other relief filed by the appellants who are appellants in C.A. Nos. 6933-34 of 2002.

(2.) It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and her legal representatives were substituted as plaintiffs before the trial court. The original defendant also died before the filing of the first appeal, and his legal representatives were brought on record as Appellant Nos. 2 to 6 before the first Appellate Court. For the sake of convenience, the Plaintiffs would be referred to as the 'Appellants' and the Defendants would be referred to as the Respondents'.

(3.) The case made out by the original plaintiff (since deceased) in her plaint was as follows: Shri Jai Narayan Mishra, original defendant (since deceased) made a proposal to constitute a firm for construction of a cinema theatre on the land of the original plaintiff (since deceased) and on acceptance of the said proposal by her, they executed a deed of partnership dated 26th of June, 1977. Clause 4 of the partnership deed envisaged that the plaintiff's share in the profits would be 2 annas in a rupee. The original plaintiff (since deceased) was receiving Rs. 2,000/- per month from the original defendant (since deceased) in pursuance of Clause 13, which guaranteed that the minimum profit of Rs. 2,000/- per month would be paid to her. The defendant never disclosed to the plaintiff as to what amount was due to her on settling the annual accounts of the firm. The defendant never furnished the statement of accounts to the plaintiff. He never disclosed the amount of profit payable to her towards her two anna share in the business. The defendant mismanaged the business of the firm and manipulated the account books. There was mutual irretrievable distrust between the plaintiff and the defendant and hence it was impossible to get along with the defendant in the business of the firm. The defendant stopped payment of the minimum guarantee profit to the plaintiff with a motive to strain her financial resources. The gravity of distrust assumed such proportions that the plaintiff could not continue as a partner in the firm. The defendant is also guilty of non-furnishing of annual accounts to the plaintiff and hence the suit. The original defendant (since deceased) entered appearance and contested the suit by filing a written statement.. In the written statement, it was, inter alia, alleged as follows: