SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Mad) 365

RAMASWAMI GOUNDER
K. Nagutha Mohamed Nainar – Appellant
Versus
Vedavalli Ammal – Respondent


Advocates:
M. Natesan, for Appellant.
Respondent not represented.

Judgment.-

This second Appeal is sought to be preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of South Arcot in A.S. No. 168 of 1956, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Cuddalore in O.S. No. 194 of 1953.

The point of law raised is that the lower appellate Court should have allowed the amendment asked in I.A. No. 449 of 1957 and that the trial Court instead of dismissing the suit should have directed the return of the plaint.

The facts are: The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for rendition of accounts in respect of the profits of the consolidated partnership of Mask &38; Co., and K.S. Co., and to decree his share of the profits after ascertainment. The plaintiff and his brothers Murad and Sultan were partners of K.S. Co., which had its place of business both at Porto novo and Singapore. Defendants 1 to 8 were partners of Mask &38; Co., at Panruti. K.S. Co., at Porto novo and Mask &38; Co., at Panruti entered into a partnership. Plaintiff’s brother Sultan Maracair died on 14th August, 1928. But the suit partnership between K.S. Co., and Mask &38; Co., continued. After the death of Sultan Maracair, insolvency proceedings were i










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top