The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dissolution of a partnership and the rendition of accounts of a dissolved firm are maintainable even if the firm is not registered, as per Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The plaintiff in a suit filed for rendering of accounts of a partnership and for declaring that the partnership stands dissolved, is the appellant in this appeal.

2. The appellant alleges that a firm by name M/s Sealand Timbers was formed and constituted by him and respondents 2 and 3 herein, as per Ext.A1 partnership deed dated 25.02.2002. The specific averment of the appellant in the plaint was that the firm was constituted with a capital of Rs.5,00,000/- which was contributed by the partners in the ratio of 20%, 30% and 50% between the appellant, second and third respondent herein respectively. He alleges that after the partnership was so constituted, the capital was invested for the purpose of establishment of the factory run by the firm and that, for the said purpose, the property belonging to the third respondent was taken on lease by the partnership under a lease agreement. The said lease agreement has been produced on record and marked as Ext.A2.

3. The appellant has a specific assertion that when the said property was entrusted to the firm, it was a paddy field which required large amount of filling and that a shed was thereafter constructed thereon, all with the funds contributed by the partners into the said firm. He says that machines like band-saw, re-saw, cross cutter, drilling machine etc were purchased and installed in the shed constructed by the firm in the said land. The appellant alleges that the third respondent herein did not have any experience in timber business, whereas, he has had a great amount of expertise and familiarity in the said line of business. According to the appellant, when the business began to progress and flourish, the attitude of the third respondent began to change and reached a situation where the continuance of the business by the firm became difficult, which finally necessitated that the firm be dissolved. He alleges that the dispute between the partners was primarily on account of the influence of the father and brother of the third respondent herein and that the intention of the third respondent was to convert the partnership business as his own proprietary concern. He says that when matters became incorrigible between the partners, he requested the third respondent herein for dissolution of the firm, but that the said attempts did not yield any result. The cause of action that has been pleaded by the appellant in the plaint is that on 15.6.2004, the third respondent along with his father and brother threatened the appellant with bodily injuries and even fear of death, if he even entered the premises of the firm. On such allegations the suit was filed seeking that the firm be declared to be dissolved and also for rendition of the accounts.

4. A written statement was filed on behalf of the third respondent herein, being the third defendant in the suit, wherein it is specifically alleged that the firm had already been dissolved with effect from 31.3.2004 and that the accounts of the firm as on that day had been already settled between the parties and in fact approved. The third respondent specifically alleges that the appellant was not entitled to seek any relief in the suit because the firm had already been dissolved and that his attempt in filing the suit is to obtain the profits in the concern, which after the dissolution, has been run by the third respondent herein as a proprietary firm, as per the terms of the dissolution, and thus to obtain to himself undue enrichment by making a claim over the profits that the proprietary concern had made under the charge of the third respondent.

5. The second defendant who, the parties concede, was the Managing Partner of the firm, filed a written statement virtually admitting the plaint averments and supporting the appellant. This written statement was filed on behalf of the first defendant firm also because the second respondent, as its Managing Partner, is competent to represent it. The second respondent sta