LAWS(APH)-1959-4-24

G VENKATASWAMI Vs. POGAKU RAMANNA

Decided On April 17, 1959
G.VENKATASWAMI Appellant
V/S
POGAKU RAMANNA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second Appeal arises out of a suit (O. S. No. 548 of 1951) on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Madanapalle, instituted by the present Appellant for settlement of accounts between himself and the defendants and for calling upon the latter to account for the plaintiffs share or the profits of the partnership business carried on under the name and style of Rama and Swamy in the Madanappalle town and for a direction to the defendants to pay to him his half share of the profits. A preliminary decree was passed on 28-11-1952. A Commissioner was appointed to go into the accounts and submit a report.It was accordingly submitted. A final decree was passed directing the plaintiff to pay Rs. 630-6-0 to the second defendant and Rs. 2,119-5-9 to the 1st defendant retaining his own (plaintiff) share of the profits of Rs. 2,112-10-4 subject to the payment of the necessary court-fee thereon. Against that final decree the plaintiff filed an appeal (A. S. 161 of 1954 on the file of the District Court, Chittoor) and subject to certain modifications of the actual amounts payable, the final decree was confirmed with a direction that each party should bear its own costs. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, he and the 1st defendant carried on the business under the name and style of Rama and Swamy in Madanapalle in asbestos cement sheets and iron cuttings and defectives from the year 1945. The 1st defendant was to invest the necessary capital. The plaintiff was to be the working partner. The profits accrued from the business were to be divided equally between them. The second defendant is stated to be a clerk entitled to a remuneration to, be fixed on the basis of the profits of the business.According to the plaintiffs case, the partnership business went on smoothly till about the end of 1948, when differences arose between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in respect of the business. It is alleged that the 1st defendant repudiated the partnership in or about the middle of October 1948, and thereafter some attempts were made at settlement of accounts, and that as a matter of fact, accounts were looked into by the plaintiff and the second defendant.According to the plaintiff the stock in trade and the cash were with the 1st defendant. Nothing final emerged out of these attempts and so the plaintiff brought his action for directing a final settlement of accounts by calling upon the defendants to account to the plaintiff of his share of the profits of the partnership business and directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff his half share of the profits in the same.

(3.) The 1st defendant while admitting that he and the plaintiff carried on business in asbestos cement sheets, denied that there was any partnership with respect to iron cuttings and defectives. It is also stated in the written statement that the 1st defendant requested the second defendant to keep the iron goods in the premises of the agent of the Caltex Company, and that he was not in possession of either the cash or the accounts, except two account books which were handed over to him by the 2nd defendant for the purposes of production before the Income Tax Officer.He denied the allegation of the plaintiff as to looking into accounts- and stated that he was not bound by anything that the plaintiff or the second defendant might have decided. Further it was also alleged that on the allegation of the plaint, the suit in the form in which it was laid was incompetent. The 2nd defendant denied any connection with the partnership business and stated that he was only writing some accounts because he was friendly with the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.No money was ever given to him by way of remuneration and, therefore, he was not a necessary party to the suit. He, however, admitted in his written statement that at the instance of the 1st defendant he was keeping the iron goods in the premises of one Ramachandra Reddy, the agent of the Caltex Company.