This regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 4 herein.

2. Appellant was the 1st defendant and 5th respondent was the 2nd defendant. The suit was filed for taking the accounts of the dissolved partnership firm treating the sales of the properties effected by the 1st defendant in favour of the purchasers as not binding on the plaintiffs and for a decree for the amount found due to the plaintiffs.

3. It was the case of the plaintiffs that R.S. No. 88/2 of Krishnapur Village in Hubli Taluk was jointly owned by four persons. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 1 to 3 being acquaintances and friends decided to undertake a venture to develop and sell the land bearing R.S. No. 88/2 and an oral agreement in this regard to carry on the business in development and sale of plots was reached amongst them. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 3 were required to contribute equally towards investment and expenses and the profit and losses should be shared equally. It was also agreed that all of them should together enter into an agreement to purchase the property from the owners of R.S. No. 88/2 and with the consent of all the parties, a power of attorney from the owners of the lands should be taken in the name of the 1st defendant to enable him to complete all formalities and also to sell or transfer the flats to be formed in the land.

4. Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 3 negotiated with the owners and entered into a registered sale-cum-development agreement on 19-5-1988. The sale consideration payable was fixed at Rs. 5,78,000/-. The purchasers were to get the land converted and secure necessary approved layout plan and develop the land by incurring expenditure on their own. After development of the land, 15 guntas of the same was to be delivered to the owners. Owners of the land were required to execute a power of attorney to enable any of the purchasers to develop the land and sell the plots.

5. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the agreement, a power of attorney came to be executed by the owners in favour of the 1st defendant. A sum of Rs. 2,02,000/-was paid by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 3 to the owners on the date of agreement. As they faced financial difficulty, all of them together approached the 3rd plaintiff to join the venture by contributing financially. Accordingly, 3rd plaintiff contributed Rs. 80,000/-on 11-9-1988 which is evidenced by a document produced and marked at Ex. P. 85. As per the plaintiffs, further payments were made to the landowners in between 1988 to 1992.

6. The 1st defendant after completion of the development and formation of plots, sold the said plots to different persons showing less consideration in the records. As he failed to furnish the accounts despite making profits, the plaintiffs dissolved the joint venture by issuing notice on 17-8-1995 addressed to the 1st defendant and also calling upon him to furnish the accounts. Since the plaintiff failed to furnish the accounts, the suit came to be situated.

7. Only the 1st defendant-appellant herein contested the suit denying the very joint venture. He contended that it was he who had agreed to purchase the land from the owners for the purpose of developing the same and selling the plots. As the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 were close friends of the 1st defendant, they approached the 1st defendant agreeing to contribute towards the sale consideration and for future expense so that the work could be done in partnership, to which the 1st defendant agreed. However, as plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 2 and 3 had no ready money, it was the 1st defendant who alone paid Rs. 2,02,000/-to the owners and got the agreement registered in favour of all of them jointly. As the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 2 and 3 were unable to make any p