VIJAYALAKSHMI JAYARAM Vs. M R PARASURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed O.S. No.103 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tirupathi, on 23-6-1982 for dissolution of partnership firm'Pratap Talkies' (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm') and preliminary decree for rendition of accounts. THE partnership which was reconstituted with effect from 1-7-1976, is not 'at will'. Under clause 17 of the deed, Ex.B-1, the firm can be dissolved by common consent of all partners and no one person has a right by himself to dissolve the partnership. As per clause 19,

(2.) PENDING appeal, respondent No. 4 died on 11-6-1985 and notice was ordered in C.M.P.Nos. 14170 to 14173 of 1986 to his wife and minor son who are sought to be brought on record as legal representatives. The wife who was served with notice on 15-4-1988 did not choose to file any appearance in the Court or any counter. As the son was shown as minor in the notice, evidently it was not served separately on the son though he became major by the date of service. As none appeared for the wife and son of the fourth respondent, this Court condoned the delay in filing the petition to set aside the abatement and ordered C.M.P.No. 14170 of 1986 on 6-12-1988. In C.M.P.No. 14171 of 1986,7th respondent was appointed as guardian of 8th respondent. They have subsequently filed petitions C.M.P.Nos. 5550 and 5551 of 1989 contending that the deceased by his will dated 21-3-1985 bequeathed his interest in the firm to another firm N.V.K. Enterprises of which C. Krishna Murthy is the managing partner and major shareholder, that they have nothing to do with the suit property and that they were unnecessarily brought on record as legal representatives without notice to them. Notice was ordered on these petitions toC. Krishna Murthy who filed counter supporting the petition and contending that though he is legal representative of the deceased Surendra, as far as suit properties are concerned, he cannot be brought on record now as the appeal abated long back due to the appellant not having filed appropriate petition to set aside the abatement. Though the appellanthasnotfiled any counter, learned Counsel for the appellant opposed these petitions on the ground that as per clause 17 of the partnership deed, he cannot be inducted as partner.

(3.) AS regards C.M.P.No. 5551 of 1989 filed by the son, it is significant to note that the petition was filed simultaneously with C.M.P.No. 5550 of 1989 filed by his mother and incidentally by the same counsel. In this affidavit also, it is not disclosed when he came to know that he was impleaded as legal representative. AS the mother has notice both on her behalf and on behalf of the son who was shown as minor in the notice and as there is no conflict of interest between them, the son must be held to have had constructive notice of the petition and cannot raise the technical plea that he became major even by the date of service of notice on the mother. Accordingly, C.M.P.No. 5551 of 1989 is dismissed.