( 1 ) THIS is a miscellaneous appeal preferred against the judgment of the Subordinate judge, Bapatla dated 18-12-1989 in A. S. No. 18 of 1984.

( 2 ) THE appellants are the defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 551 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bapatla. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and settlement of accounts of the 1st defendant-firm and to pass a decree in his favour for such amount as he may become entitled to with interest against such defendants who become liable to pay the said amount. The Principal district Munsif Court in its judgment dated 07-5-1984 dismissed the said suit with costs by holding that there is no necessity to pass any order for dissolution of the firm as it was already dissolved on the date of disposing of the mill which is the sole property of the firm in favour of defendants 18 and 19.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal covered by A. S. No. 18 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, bapatla.

( 4 ) THE averments of the plaint are brieflyas follows: the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 constituted a firm known as "sree Srinivasa rice and Oil Mill, Karlapalem in 1972. The 2nd defendant is the managing partner of the said firm and was managing the mill. Subsequently some of the partners sold away their shares to others and in pursuance of that sale defendants 16 and 17 were inducted as partners into the said firm and on 15-11-1977 they entered into a partnership-deed on a general stamp. The 2nd defendant being the managing partner of the firm has to settle the accounts every year by the end of March and distribute the profits among the partners. The 2nd defendant did not manage the firm properly and several partners are not satisfied with the affairs of the firm. Despite repeated demands, the 2nd defendant did not render proper accounts and failed to settle the same. The mill of the firm was damaged in the 1977 cyclone. Therefore, the partners sold away the mill to defendants 18 and 19 and they in turn leased out the mill to defendants 20 and 21. The 2nd defendant who received the sale consideration was authorized to discharge the debts of the firm and to pay the balance to the partners, as it was not possible for the partners to carry on the business in partnership with the 2nd defendant, hence the suit.

( 5 ) THE 2nd defendant, who is the main contestant, filed a written statement and the following are the averments in brief: the averments of the plaint are denied. The plaintiff carried on the business of the firm and managed the affairs under his personal supervision by maintaining accounts with false entries. The plaintiff operated the bank accounts and borrowed loans on behalf of the firm without the knowledge and consent of other partners. The plaintiff misappropriated Rs. 2,18,900/- of the firm as on 06-10-1977. The mill for which the partnership was constituted was not in a working condition as on 25-7-1979. His name was described as managing partner nominally. The plaintiff absconded from the mill without informing the other partners by leaving the account books and other papers at the mill premises. The partnership firm constituted on 01-04-1977 was not registered as required under the provisions of the Partnership Act. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

( 6 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 18 and 19, who purchased the mill of the partnership firm for Rs. 2,80,000/- under a contract of sale dated 25-7-1979 executed by all the partners, pleaded that they are not necessary parties to the suit and they have nothing to do with the profits and losses of the said firm.

( 7 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 6, 11 and 20 filedseparate written statements. Defendant nos. 3, 9, 10, 12 and 15 filed a Memo adopting the written statement of the 6th defendant.

( 8 ) DEFENDANT No. 21 filed a Memo adopting the written statement of the 20th defendant. Defendants 1 and 16 filed a