( 1 ) S. A. NO. 1048 of 2001 was filed by the defendants in O. S. No. 1061 of 1998 (sic. 1990) on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge city Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial court. The defendants being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court preferred A. S. No. 52 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad. When the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal the defendants preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality.

( 2 ) S. A. NO. 1050 of 2001 is filed by the defendants in O. S. No. 1061 of 1990 against the findings of the first appellate Court in the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs in a. S-No. 52 of 1999. Since both the appeals arise out of the same suit, they are disposed of through this common judgment.

( 3 ) THE first plaintiff filed O. S. No. 1061 of 1990 for dissolution of partnership firm known as M/s. Anand Cinema, to direct the defendants to render accounts, to direct delivery of the entire cinema hall with the structures to the plaintiff and costs. During the pendency of the suit the 1st plaintiff died and her legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 3 and 4. The second plaintiff is the G. P. A. holder of the first plaintiff. The suit was filed against the sole defendant and during the pendency of the first appeal the defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 6.

( 4 ) THE averments of the plaint are brieflyas follows.

( 5 ) THE defendant made a proposal to constitute a firm for construction of a cinema theatre on the land of the plaintiff and on acceptance by the plaintiff a deed of partnership dt. 26-6-1977 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff was receiving Rs. 2,000/- per month from the defendant towards the minimum profit in pursuance of clause (4) of the partnership deed which envisaged that the plaintiff s share in the profits would be 2 annas in a rupee and in pursuance of clause (13) there is a guarantee that the minimum profit of Rs. 2,000/- per month would be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant never disclosed to the plaintiff as to what amount was still 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 as to how much profit was payable to her towards her two-anna share in the business. The defendant mismanaged the firm s business and manipulated the account books by duping the plaintiff. There is 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 guaranteed profit to the plaintiff with a motive to strain her financial resources. The gravity of distrust has assumed so much proportion that the plaintiff cannot 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.

( 6 ) THE defendant filed a written statement stating that the averments of the plaint are not true. The value of the land given by the plaintiff for construction of the cinema theatre was only Rs. 70/- per sq. yrd. in the year 1977. The defendant invested more than Rs. 25 lakhs for the construction of the theatre. He has been maintaining accounts day-to-day in respect of the cinema business and no transaction relating to the said business had been concealed from the plaintiff. An extent of 1000 sq. yds. had been acquired by the Government for widening of the road out of the total extent of 6808 sq. mts. of site given by the plaintiff for construction of the cinema theatre and there remains only the balance land. The duration of the partnership as per clause (3) (c) of the partnership deed is 42 years but subsequently it was agreed to give option to the defendant for anothe