Plaintiff is the appellant. He is a partner of a registered firm, the 1st defendant in the suit. Suit was laid for a declaration that the 12th defendant is not a duly accepted partner of the 1st defendant firm and for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain defendants 1 to 11 from encumbering the plaint schedule property and also from inducting new partners to the firm, without the consent of all other partners. Pending suit, the declaratory relief canvassed was given up and adjudication was called for only with respect to the injunctions applied for. The trail court, after examining the materials tendered, dismissed the suit holding that no cause of action had been made out by the plaintiff. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the dismissal of the suit, the lower appellate court partly decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff a decree of injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 11 from encumbering the plaint schedule property without the consent of the existing partners of the firm. However, the injunction sought for against alienation of the plaint schedule property was declined holding that clause 20 of the partnership deed (Ext.B1) empower the managing partner or manager to buy and sell landed properties. Plaintiff has filed this present appeal impeaching the correctness of the decree to the extent, the injunction sought by him against defendants 1 to 11 from alienating the plaint schedule property without the consent of all the other partners of the firms, has been negatived by both the courts below.

2. The case set up by the plaintiff for the reliefs claimed and the contentions raised by the contesting defendants resisting such claims, in brief, can be summed up thus:

Plaintiff is a partner of a registered firm, M/s. Paracka Industries, which is the 1st defendant in the suit. One among the partners of the 1st defendant firm, namely, Aliyakutty Paul passed away in 2002. His legal heirs, who are not partners of the firm, are impleaded as defendants 12 to 18 in the suit. Defendants 2 to 11 are other partners of the firm. Alleging that without the consent of all other partners, the 2nd defendant colluding with some other partners, are making attempts to induct 12th defendant in the place of deceased Aliyakutty Paul with the fraudulent intent to encumber and alienate the plaint properties without the consent of all other partners of the firm the suit was laid for a declaration that the 12th defendant is not a duly accepted partner of the 1st defendant firm and for injunction restraining defendants 2 to 11 from encumbering or alienating the plaint property without the consent of the other partners of the firm. The 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant as well filed a written statement admitting that the plaintiff with defendants 2 to 11 are partners of the firm. He contended that the plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the suit and the 12th defendant had been inducted as a partner of the firm with the consent of all the legal heirs of Aliyakutty Paul. Plaintiff has no cause of action for instituting the suit and the 2nd defendant, managing partner of the firm, as per the partnership deed, is competent to encumber and alienate the properties, was the further contention of the 2nd defendant. Some other defendants namely, 3, 4, 6 to 12 and 18 filed a joint written statement, in which, they adopted the contentions taken by the 2nd defendant.

3. Pending suit, the 2nd defendant passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record as additional defendants 19 to 27, who filed an additional written statement adopting the contentions taken by their predecessor, the 2nd defendant.

4. Maintainability of the suit being challenged, it was considered preliminarily by the trail court. Suit was found to be maintainable, and then the trail proceeded. The evidence consisted of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 for the plaintiff and Ext.B1 and DW1 for the contesting defendants. The declaratory relief canvas