MEENU KORAH Vs. RAJU KORAH ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- These appeals are against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 55/2009 dtd. 20/10/2011 and O.S. No. 131/2009 dtd. 18/10/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam. The appellant in RFA No. 406/2012 is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S. No. 55/2009. The appellants in RFA No. 761/2013 are defendants 6 to 12 and the respondents are the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 and 13 in O.S. No. 131/2009. Parties in these appeals will be referred to as described before the court below. Parties in both the suits are the same. The suits deal with two different partnership firms. However, the terms contained in both the partnership deeds are admittedly the same. As the parties and the terms of the deeds are the same, the appeals are being disposed of together. Both the aforesaid suits were filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. O.S. No. 55/2009 was for dissolution of partnership by name 'Anupama Theatres' and O.S. No. 131/2009 was for dissolution of the partnership by name 'Apsara Theatres'. According to the plaintiff, the partnership business is to be conducted by the Managing Partners who have a duty to keep proper accounts and convince the other partners of the details of the accounts. They are liable to prepare the balance-sheet and share the profits with the partners in accordance with their share. This is not being done. Hence the plaintiff is not interested in proceeding with the partnership business. So, she sent Ext.A2 notice for dissolution of the partnership firms and thereafter filed the aforesaid two suits. The defendants disputed the claim of the plaintiff and contented that if the latter is desirous of retiring from the firms, she is free to do so. In such eventuality, the plaintiff can be given her share of profits. But she cannot insist for a dissolution of partnerships as the retirement of a partner would not result in dissolution of the same.

(2.) In O.S. No. 55/2009, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam, finding that Ext.A1 partnership deed dtd. 10/07/2003 relating to Anupama Theatres is not one 'AT WILL', dismissed the suit. However, the learned Additional Sub Judge in O.S. No. 131/2009 finding that Ext.A1 partnership deed dtd. 10/07/2003 relating to Apsara Theaters is a partnership 'AT WILL', decreed the suit. The court below in O.S. No. 55/2009 referring to the various clauses in Ext.A1 with specific reference to clause 16(b), which deals with retirement of a partner, held the partnership to be one 'AT WILL'. The learned Additional Sub Judge in O.S. No. 131/2009 on the other hand held that there is neither an express or implied provision relating to duration or determination of the partnership in the deed and that the clause relating to retirement of a partner cannot be equated with 'determination' within the meaning of Sec. 7 of the Partnership Act, 1932 and hence finding that it is a partnership 'AT WILL', proceeded to decree the suit.

(3.) Heard Sri. Mathew John, the learned counsel for the appellant in R.F.A. No. 406/2012 and for respondents 1 to 7 in R.F.A. No. 761/2013; Sri. Reji George, the learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 761/2013 and also for respondents 7 to 10 in R.F.A. No. 406/2012 and Sri. Jagan Abraham M. George, the learned counsel for additional eighth respondent in R.F.A. No. 761/2013 and for additional 15 respondent in R.F.A. No. 406/2012.