The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the partnership deed and relevant sections of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 to determine the nature of the partnership as one of partnership at Will.

The appellant herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.226 of 1986 dated 27.04.1993, on the file of Additional Sub Court, Dindigul. The suit has been filed for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts.

2. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows:

The first defendant firm is a partnership firm. The said firm has been started in pursuant to the registered partnership deed dated 14.06.1979 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4. In pursuant to the same, the theatre has been constructed and run in the name of Abirami Theatre. The plaintiff has paid the share of Rs.2,20,000/-. The second defendant is the Managing partner. Shops have also been constructed by the firm. The defendants 5 to 14 are the tenants of the shops. Since the second defendant has refused to share the profit and give accounts inspite of the request made by the plaintiff on several occasions, the present suit has been filed for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts. The partnership firm being registered, under Partnership Act 1932, the suit will have to be decreed as prayed for.

3. The case of the second defendant is as follows:

The second defendant filed a written statement stating that it is true that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-. It is also true that the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4 are partners. It is not true that the plaintiff was not given a share of the profit. It is also not true that the defendant has refused to give the accounts. The partnership is not one "at will". The suit is liable to be dismissed, since no notice has been given to the defendant. It is further stated that the defendants 5 to 14 are unnecessary parties.

4. The defendants 3 and 4 have filed a separate written statements. They have also supported the case of the plaintiff and wanted the dissolution of partnership. The defendants 5, 6, 8 to 14 filed written statements stating that they are only tenants and hence, they are unnecessary parties.

5. The following issues have been framed by the trial Court which are as follows:

1) Is the plaintiff entitled to seek dissolution of the partnership firm?

2) Is the second defendant liable to give the accounts?

3) Is the suit liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties?

4) Is the suit liable to be dismissed for adding unnecessary parties?

5) Is the Court fee correctly paid?

6) Are the particulars about the suit properties correct or not?

7) What is the relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1, who is the husband of the plaintiff was examined and the second defendant has been examined as D.W.1. The plaintiff has marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 and the second defendant has marked Exs.B-1 to B-28.

The Court below on an interpretation of Ex.B-1 has held that the partnership firm is not one of partnership at will and thus, dismissed the suit.

7. Being aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

8. The only point of determination in the appeal is as to whether the partnership entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4 is one of partnership at will or not.

9. Heard the learned counsels for the appellant as well as the respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the partnership is one at will and the same can be clearly seen on perusal of Ex.B-1 itself.

The learned senior counsel further submitted that Clause (3) of Ex.B1 specifically says that the partnership is one of partnership at will. The learned senior counsel further submitted that there is no ambiguity in Ex.A-1 and therefore, simple and plain meaning will have to be given. According to the learned counsel, clause (7) only speaks about the condition that the share of a partner cannot be sold to any other person. Similarly, Clause (10) only speaks about retirement from the partnership by taking the share. Hence,