A suit for accounts cannot be maintained between some only of the partners of a firm but every partner must be made a party. Non-impleading of a necessary party is fatal even if the plaintiff was otherwise entitled to get a decree.

PADMANABHAN, J:- Second defendant is the appellant. O. S. No. 2 of 1973 before the Sub Court, Alleppey was filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership and settlement of accounts. The Sub Judge allowed the suit granting dissolution of partnership and ordering settlement of accounts. Hence this appeal.

2. A brief history of the litigation may help us in understanding the facts and controversies. The parties are followers of the Hindu Law. First defendant is the father and defendants 2 to 6 are his sons. Among them, some died after the suit. 9th defendant is the wife of the 5th defendant and defendants 7 and 8 and the plaintiff are their sons. Defendants 10 to 14 are the daughters of defendants 5 and 9.

3. In the year 1124, the first defendant executed Ext. B1 settlement deed by which some of the properties were given to defendants 2 to 6. The joint family properties were divided between defendants 1 to 6 under Ext. A1 in 1955. An oil mill alone was kept in common. There was a provision store by name "M. R. Venkateswara Prabhu and M. V. Surendranatha Prabhu", which was conducted as a joint family concern. That business was also divided under Ext.A1 though there was some controversy as to whether it was a joint family business or only an individual concern of the first defendant, now that controversy is over and it is admitted that it was actually a joint family business. At present the main dispute is whether the business has been partitioned under Ext. A1 or not.

4. Ext. A1 was on 16-8-1955. On 17-8-1955 defendants 1 to 3 and 5 executed Ext. B2 deed of partnership in order to continue the provision store as a partnership concern, admitted the 4th defendant, who was then a minor, to the benefits of partnership until he attains majority. It was also decided to admit him as a regular partner after he attains majority. It is conceded that in fact he was made a regular partner after he became major.

5. On 12-11-1957 Ext. A2 partition deed was executed between the 5th defendant and his 3 sons, namely, plaintiff and defendants 7 and 8, who were minors at that time. That partition deed was regarding the assets obtained by 5th defendant under Ext. A1 including his share in the partnership business. The document proceeded on the assumption that the partnership business is also a joint family concern in which plaintiff and defendants 7 and 8 are entitled to right by birth. 3/4th share of the business was given to plaintiff and defendants 7 and 8. The 5th defendant surrendered guardianship of his minor sons and first defendant was appointed as their guardian. The 1/4th share of the 5th defendant in the provision store was given to defendants 9 to 11 and the daughters to be born in future. Defendants 12 to 14 are the daughters born subsequently.

6. The suit was filed on the assumption that the provision store was not partitioned under Ext. A1 and it continued as a joint family business even after Ext. A1 in spite of Ext. B2 partnership deed. On the basis of Ext. A2, plaintiff claimed that himself and defendants 7 and 8 are also partners, each entitled to 1/4th of 1/5th share, that is one upon 20th share, over the business as of right. The further claim is that defendants 9 to 14 are jointly entitled to 1/20 share. Plaintiff wanted dissolution of partnership, settlement of accounts and realisation of the 1/20 share due to him. The contentions of defendants 1 to 3 could be briefly put as under. Ext. A1 was an outright partition of the entire joint family assets including "M. R. Venkiteswara Prabhu and M. V. Surendranatha Prabhu" (herein-after called the provision store), thereafter, there was no joint family business. It was only a partnership business conducted by defendants 1 to 5 under Ext. B2. Ext. A2 was only an internal arrangement between 5th defendant and his children. The other partners are not bound by it. Plaintiff and defendants 7 to 14 are not partners of the firm and the plaintiff has no right to file a suit for di