IMPORTANT POINT
A partnership at will can be dissolved by notice from any partner, and a suit for accounts requires a formal dissolution request to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.10 of 2018 on the files of the Sub Court, Kozhikode is the petitioner. He filed I.A.No.168 of 2018 in O.S.No.10 of 2018 for appointment of a receiver. As per the order dated 19.11.2018 the learned I Additional Sub Judge dismissed that petition. He challenged that order by filing an appeal. The I Additional District Judge as per the judgment dated 20.03.2019 confirmed that order. Aggrieved thereby, he filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing, on instructions, for respondents No.2, 3, 4, 7 and 9.

3. The plaintiff and defendants were the partners of a partnership firm named Shah Parshotam Madhavjee. That was a partnership at will. The petitioner instituted the said suit for rendition of accounts. It was averred that the partnership firm was dissolved and on taking the accounts of the firm, the petitioner shall be allotted his share. The petitioner contended in I.A.No.168 of 2018 that the business of the partnership firm was closed with effect from September, 2008 and the building it owned had been let out. The rent being received has not been properly accounted, the entire portion of the building has not been properly utilised and huge loss was being occasioned. The petitioner therefore sought to appoint a receiver.

4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. They maintained that rents for various rooms in the occupation of various tenants have been collected and accounted properly. The tenants have been making payments through the bank. From the rent being collected, maintenance of the building, payment of wages to the employees and such other necessary expenses were being met. The balance amount of Rs.15,73,570/-then available has been kept in the bank account of the partnership firm. The petitioner has only 20% share in the partnership firm. The respondents accordingly sought to dismiss the petition.

5. The plea for appointment of a receiver was found untenable by the trial court, both in law and on facts. The law that the trial court found to have barred the plea for appointment of the receiver is that the suit as framed was not maintainable. Also that, since no relief of dissolution of the firm was sought, the suit for rendition of accounts could not be entertained.

6. The appellate court after referring to the law laid down by a four Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Banarsi Das v. Seth Kanshi Ram and others [AIR 1963 SC 1165] and also this Court in Muraleedharan T.P. and another v. M.Irabhimkutty and others [2014 (1) KLT 820] concurred with the trial court on the question of law.

7. In Banarsi Das (supra) the dispute was concerning S. B. Sugar Mills, Bijnor, a partnership firm. It was a partnership at will. There were three suits. The first suit was filed by one of the partners on May 13, 1944 for declaring that the partnership stood dissolved on May 13, 1944 and rendition of accounts. On October 11, 1947, that suit was dismissed for default. On November 8, 1947, another partner instituted a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the receiver from acting as the receiver. That suit was dismissed on March 3, 1948. The third suit was filed on October 7, 1948, claiming the reliefs of a declaration that the partnership was dissolved on 13th May, 1944 or in the alternative to dissolve it and for accounts and allotment of share in the assets.

8. In the interregnum several transactions took place regarding the firm property. Eventually the plaintiff in the third suit abandoned the claims except for relief of taking accounts and share of profits. In view of that concession by the plaintiff, the Court decreed that suit declaring that the partnership stood dissolved with effect from 13th May, 1944 and the plaintiff's share was 1/6th and to have rendition of accounts.

9. All the three decrees were challenged in appeals. The High Court on March 15, 1958 dismissed