Ramaprasada Rao, J.-The defendants in O.S.No.47 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai and the appellants in A.S.No. 16 of 1969 on the file of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai are the appellant in this second appeal. The appellants are partly successful in the Courts below. In this long-drawn litigation which is more than 25 years old, the parties have not yet seen the light of their respective rights but are still litigating over it. In the main the suit is one for accounts and the parties belong to the Nagarathar Community. The relevant facts have "been summarised in extenso by the trial Court and to some extent by the learned District Judge. We shall, however, refer to the firms in their contracted forms so as to avoid elongations and to a certain extent confusion. K.T.Rm. was a family firm and A.T.P.L. was its maraldar through whom the funds of K.T.Rm. were invested with Adathidars from time to time. There was a partnership firm S.R.M.P.C.T. which was the original Adathidar. This partnership was dissolved in 1920 and there came into existence two firms by reason of such dissolution called S.R.M. Firm and P.C.T. Firm. When instructions were sought for by the above two firms which broke up from the erstwhile joint firm, from the maraldar regarding the investment of monies of K.T.Rm., the maraldar authorised them to continue to invest the monies in the usual manner. This firm P.C.T. again got itself divided into two firms, P.C.T.P. and P.C.T.L. and it is common case that the account of K.T.Rm. continued with P.C.T.L. But in the instant case, K.T.Rm. has filed the present action for accounting as against P.C.T.P. and P.C.T.L.

2. In 1945, there was a suit in O.S.No. 88 of 1945, on the file of the Sub-Court, Devakottai, for partition in the K.T.Rm. firm in which the maraldar, A.T.P.L. was impleaded as the third defendant. P.C.T.P. and P.C.T.L. as the 7th and 8th defendants. In that suit no relief was asked as against the 7th and 8th defendants therein. An advocate - receiver was appointed in that suit. The money lending business of K.T.Rm. and incidentally the investments made by the maraldar with defendants 7 and 8 there informed a part of the subject-matter. The Advocate-Receiver gave notice on 25th May, 1950 which is marked as Ex. B.3, in the present action to defendants 1 and 2 in this suit seeking for rendition of accounts and for return of the money entrusted to them. Under Ex.B.4 dated 18th June, 1950 P.C.T.P. repudiated the liability and took up the stand that P.C.T.L. only was responsible. This was not accepted by the Receiver or the K.T.Rm. firm as is seen from Ex.B.5. Thereafter the present suit O.S.No. 47 of 1951 was filed by the Receiver and the K.T.Rm. firm against P.C.T. as a whole with the result that all the members of the P.C.T.P. as well as P.C.T.L. firm were brought into the litigation. On a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the suit, the parties had to come up to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 357 of 1959. The High Court held that the suit was not barred under Order 2, rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and remanded the same for further trial. A preliminary decree for accounts was passed on 27th August, 1962. The defendants in the present suit unsuccessfully took up the matter in appeal upto the High Court stage. The preliminary decree for accounts later was the subject-matter of the present proceedings in which a final decree was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai on 14th October, 1968. On appeal in A.S.No.16 of 1969 to the District Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, the final decree as passed by the learned Subordinate Judge was modified to some extent and it is as against the judgment resulting in the final decree in this marathon suit for accounts rendered by the District Judge, Ramanathapuram on 15th March, 1973’ that the present second appeal has been filed. The concurrent finding of fact that P.C.T. firm as a whole is liable to acco

Click Here to Read the rest of this document