Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.-The only question that has been argued in this appeal relates to the claim for interest in respect of the amounts due to the plaintiff who is the appellant before us from 26th January, 1947.

The facts necessary to understand the contention in the appeal are these: The plaintiff brought a suit O.S. No. 153 of 1947 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai-out of which the L.P. appeal arises-for a decree directing the dissolution of the partnership firm of Sri Krishna Rice and Oil Mills, Madurai, for the taking of the accounts of the partnership from its inception down to the dissolution and the taking of an account of the losses caused by the defendants in using the partnership properties for their private benefit after expelling and excluding the plaintiff from the partnership on 26th January, 1947 and debiting such losses to the shares of defendants and other incidental reliefs. The plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 4 along with one Rajammal entered into an agreement of partnership under Exhibit A-1, dated 12th April, 1945 for carrying on the business of rice hulling and oil extraction under the name and style of Sri Krishna Rice and Oil Mills, Madurai. The term of the partnership was for a fixed period of 10 years and the plaintiff contributed a two anna share of the capital and was entitled to that share of the profits. It was the common case of all the parties that the 3rd defendant who died after the institution of the suit was taken as a partner in the place of Rajammal mentioned above. Within a year from the commencement of the partnership there were disputes between the partners as to the manner in which defendants I and 4 were conducting the partnership. Notices passed between the plaintiff and the defendants and the defendants purported to expel the plaintiff from the partnership as and from 26th January, 1947 and on and from 4th February, 1947 the defendants formed a new partnership in conjunction with two other persons and carried on this new business with the assets of the old business including of course the share of the plaintiff in these assets. The defendants in their written statement sought to support their conduct in expelling the plaintiff by alleging that it was really a case of voluntary retirement on her part and denied their accountability for the profits of the new business with the additional partners. They further stated that accounts between the partners of the original partnership were settled for one year ending 12th April, 1946, and that no case had been made out for reopening the accounts already settled. Subject to the above they further expressed their willingness to have the dissolution decreed and the plaintiff getting her share after the taking of accounts.

The learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff did not retire from the firm but had been improperly sought to be expelled from the suit firm from 26th January, 1947 and that with the aid of the total assets belonging to the firm from which the plaintiff was unlawfully expelled the defendants had carried on a new business in conjunction with additional partners, and that the so-called settlement of account for the year ending 12th April, 1946 had not been established. He also held that the plaintiff was not bound by the transactions of this new business. On these findings he passed a preliminary decree on 9th March, 1949 dissolving the partnership firm as and from the date of the decree, directed a commissioner to be appointed to take the accounts of the partnership under Exhibit A-1 from 12th April, 1945 till 26th January, 1947 and ascertain the assets of this partnership as on that date for the purpose of finding out the sum then due to the plaintiff and also to take an account from 26th January, 1947 till the date of the final decree of the new firm started under Exhibit B-5 and find out the share of the profits of the plaintiff made in the new venture as may be attributable to the use of her share of the pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document