Subba Rao, J.-This is a second appeal by the thirteenth defendant, the legal representative of the second defendant, against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, East Godavari, reversing that of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry in Original Suit No.71 of 1944. The said suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration that the suit partnership became dissolved on 22nd April, 1944, or for a dissolution of the suit partnership by Court as from the date of the suit, for taking accounts of the partnership and to recover the plaintiff’s share therein. The case of the plaintiff may be briefly stated. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 and another Karri Suryanarayana Reddi, husband of the tenth defendant and father of defendants 11 and 12, entered into a partnership on or about 5th September, 1939, at Anaparti for the purpose of purchasing and selling plantain, mango and other fruits and also doing commission business in fruit and carried on business under the name and style of Karri Vira Reddi &38; Co., at Anaparti. They also opened a branch at Jambagh, Hyderabad, and carried on business there from 5th September, 1939. The head-office of the suit partnership was managed by the second defendant and the other branch by the first and second defendants. Accounts for the business carried on for both the Head and Branch Offices were kept by defendants 1 to 3. One of the partners, Karri Suryanarayana Reddi died on 22nd April, 1944 and the suit partnership became dissolved by reason of his death from that date. Defendants 1 and 2, taking advantage of the fact that large moneys were lying with them, were not settling the accounts. The suit was therefore filed for the aforesaid reliefs. The thirteenth defendant, the legal representative of the 2nd defendant, filed a written statement denying most of the material allegations made in the plaint. It was alleged that the original partnership business was dissolved in December, 1939. A new firm was formed in December, 1939, but it was dissolved in 1941, after settlement of accounts. In 1943-44, another firm was formed and the death of Karri Suryanarayana Reddi in April, 1944, had the effect of dissolving that firm. She denied that the firm started at Hyderabad was the branch of the plaint firm and stated that the firm at Hyderabad was formed with defendants 1 and 2 as sole partners. She also denied that they were managing the partnership of Karri Vira Reddi & Co., at Anaparti. The first defendant adopted the written statement filed by the second defendant. On the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the suit partnership on 5th September, 1939, is true ?

(2) Who are the partners and what are its terms ?

(2) (a) Are defendants 1 to 3 liable to account?

(3) Was it dissolved by death on 22nd April, 1944 ?

(3) (a) If not, is the plaintiff entitled to dissolution from the date of suit ?

(4) What relief?

Additional issues:

(1) Whether the suit partnership was dissolved by December, 1939, and whether the suit is. barred ?

(2) Whether the firm at Hyderabad is a branch of the suit partnership ?

(3) Whether this Court has jurisdiction in so far as the accounts of the Hyderabad business are concerned.

The learned Subordinate Judge found on additional issue 2, that the firm at Hyderabad was a separate and distinct firm, though the partners and their shares-were the same in both the firms. On issue 2, he held that the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 9 and K. Suryanarayana Reddi were partners in the Hyderabad business, that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 and K. Suryanarayana Reddi have got one share each and defendants 8 and 9 together have got one share and that the partners were entitled to share the profits and loss in that proportion. On issue 2(a), he expressed the opinion that the first defendant was the manager of the business at Hyderabad. On issue 3, he gave the finding that the firm at Hyderabad was dissolved by the death of Suryanarayana Reddi on 22nd April, 19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document