Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Varadachariar, J.
Pentapati Venkataramana and Ors.
Versus
Pentapati Varahalu and Ors.
Decided On : 22.09.1938
partnership - accounts - Gangayya v. Venkataramiah - Soopi v. Abaulla - Sambasiva Iyer v. Natesa Iyer - Beningfield v. Baxter - Meldrum v. Scorer - Sharpe v. San Paula Railway Co. - Dean v. Macdowell - Gokul v. Sasimukki - Gopalaswami Iyer v. Kalyana Rangappa - Dasaratharama Reddi v. Narasa Redai
Fact of the Case:
The suit arose from a dispute over the accounts of dissolved partnerships among members of a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff, a minor, sought the taking of accounts and payment to his branch of a large sum of money representing its share in the partnerships. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the settlements of accounts evidenced by certain documents were fair, reasonable, and binding upon the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was maintainable as the plaintiff, as a beneficiary, was entitled to maintain the suit against the defendants and persons in possession of the assets in which the plaintiff's family was entitled to a share. The court also allowed the transposition of defendants 24 to 27 as plaintiffs and granted the amendment of the plaint to include a specific prayer for the amount due as per the settlements. The court dismissed the claim for interest on advances made to another business with partnership money but allowed the plaintiff's claim for a share in the assets of one of the partnerships. The court held that the settlement of accounts in another partnership was not binding on the plaintiff and defendants 24 to 27, and directed the defendants to make good the shortfall to the plaintiff's branch.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, the binding nature of the settlements of accounts, and the entitlement of the plaintiff's branch to a share in the assets of the partnerships.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff, as a beneficiary, was entitled to maintain the suit against the defendants and persons in possession of the assets in which the plaintiff's family was entitled to a share. The court also found that the settlement of accounts in one of the partnerships was not binding on the plaintiff and defendants 24 to 27, and directed the defendants to make good the shortfall to the plaintiff's branch.
Final Decision: The plaintiff and defendants 24 to 27 were entitled to recover the amounts due to their branch as per the terms of certain settlements and an additional amount. The court also allowed interest on the additional amount and the amounts due under the settlements.
Varadachariar, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the taking of the accounts of certain dissolved partnerships. The parties belong to the Vysia community and are members of one family though belonging to different branches which had become divided many years ago. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the oldest members in the group and they are the sons of one Chinna Venkanna. Defendants 4 to 23 are the descendants of defendants 1 to 3. Chinna Venkanna had a second cousin Venkanna who had two sons Appayya and Venkanna. The plaintiff and defendants 24 and 25 are the sons of Appayya. Defendant 28 is a grandson of Venkanna, the brother of Appayya. Defendants 26, 27 and 29 are respectively the sons of defendants 24, 25 and 28. These families had admittedly been carrying on trade in Vizianagaram; for the purposes of the present suit, it is necessary to deal with three businesses which are referred to in the record as Kottu No. 1, Kottu No. 2 and Kottu No. 3. Kottu Nos. 1 and 3 seem to have been carried on in the market and Kottu No. 2 in the house. Kottu Nos. 2 and 3 were carried on in the name of defendant 1 while Kottu No. 1 was carried on in the name of defendant 2. It is admitted that in Kottu No. 1 defendants 1, 2 and 3 had an 8 annas share as representing their family, defendants 24 and 25 had a 4 annas share as representing their joint family including the plaintiff, and defendant 28 had the remaining 4-annas share. It is also admitted that in Kottu No. 2, the family of defendants 1 to 3 had a 12-annas share, the family of defendants 24 and 25 had a 3-annas share and defendant 28 had a 1-anna share. As regards Kottu No. 3, plaintiff and defendants 24 and 25 contend that their branch was entitled to a 3-annas share in this also as in Kottu No. 2; but defendants 1 to 23 maintain that this kottu was their exclusive concern and that the branch of plaintiff and defendants 24 and 25 or the branch of defendant 28 had no interest in it.
2. It is common ground that in the course of 1926, the parties deemed it best to dissolve the partnership in respect of Kottu No. 2 and that they agreed to its dissolution as from 28th June 1926 (see Ex. 10); but as the books of the business were at that time in the possession of the Income Tax authorities, the settlement of accounts was postponed. It is also not disputed that on 2nd July 1927 the document (Ex. 4) was executed by defendants 1 to 3, 24, 25 and 28 purporting to be a settlement of accounts relating to Kottu No. 2. Kottu No. 1 was agreed to be dissolved as from 20th June 1927 and on 2nd July 1927 the arrangement evidenced by Ex. 5 was entered into in respect of this kottu. Lastly, it is admitted that there was no settlement of accounts in respect of Kottu No. 3 nor any attempt made to settle its accounts whatever the reason might be. The evidence makes it clear that though defendants 24, 25 and 28 signed Exs. 4 and 5, they did not receive the moneys payable to them in pursuance thereof and that they were not prepared to abide by them; but, instead of directly impeaching them, they put forward the plaintiff, who was a minor at the time, to send the notice (Ex. 39) dated 17th August 1927, which does not in terms refer to the settlements under Exs. 4 and 5 and attack them but merely suggests that defendants 1 to 3 had been putting off coming to a settlement and concocting false accounts in the meanwhile. Ex. 39 attempted to make out that not merely Kottu Nos. 1 to 3 but certain other businesses also including in particular a concern referred to as Ramalingeswaraswami Oil Press were the joint family concerns of the parties. This was replied to by Ex. 85 which denied the existence of any joint family business as alleged in Ex. 39 and admitting the existence of a partnership, so far as defendants 24, 25 and 28 were concerned, in Kottu Nos. 1 and 2, pleaded that the accounts of these concerns had been settled and that the amount payable to these three defendants as per those settlements had b
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
