The central legal point established in the judgment is that the surviving partner of a dissolved partnership firm is liable to render accounts even after the dissolution of the firm on the demise of a partner, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act.

D. Murugesan, J.

1. This Review Application is filed by Respondents 2 and 3 in O.S.A. No.278 of 1997 seeking for review of the judgment dated 28.4.2005 passed in the said Original Side Appeal.

2. The First Respondent herein, Smt. Sarojini, was recorded as the Legal Representative of the deceased Smt. Lakshmi Kantham Ammal, who was the First Defendant in the Suit. The Second Respondent in this Review Application filed C.S.No.178 of 1981 for the following judgment and decree:

(a) For partition and separate possession of the plaint & schedule properties by metes and bounds and allot to her one fourth share in all the properties and valuing the B schedule properties and deliver her 1/4th share therein to the Plaintiff;

(b) Directing the Defendants to pay the marriage expenses of the unmarried Plaintiff to be paid from out of the estate;

(c) Directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to render a true and proper account of the mesne profits from `A’ schedule and item 1 of the `B’ schedule property and pay her 1/4th share therein;

(d) For costs of the Suits.

3. As the issue in this Review Application is only in respect of rendition of accounts by the Revision Petitioners herein, we refer only that portion of the discussion and the findings rendered both in the Suit as well as in the Appeal.

4. While the claim of the Plaintiff, Kum. Bhagyavathi, viz., the Second Respondent herein, seeking for judgment and decree for rendition of accounts was considered, the learned Single Judge, in paragraph 27 of the judgment, found that the Review Petitioners have to render Accounts in respect of half-share of the deceased Srinivasalu Naidu in the Partnership Firm till it got dissolved on 4.5.1980. That finding was rendered on the ground that one Srinivasalu Naidu was carrying on business in the name of Mr. Srinivasalu Naidu and Company as a Partnership Firm along with the Appellant/ First Respondent herein through Smt. Lakshmi Kantham Ammal, the First Defendant in the Suit. The said Srinivasalu Nadu died on 4.5.1980. After his demise, the Partnership Firm got dissolved and his individual account with the firm showed a debit balance of about Rs.89,000/-. Thereafter, a new firm in the same name, viz., M. Srinivasalu Naidu and Company was formed, wherein the First Respondent, her son and daughter were the partners. Placing reliance on Ex.P17, income and expenditure account of the firm for the year ended 31.3.1982 and the evidence of D.W. 3, who was the husband of Sarojini Ammal, the First Respondent herein, stating that Srinivasalu Naidu was not the Sole Proprietor of M. Sinivasalu Naidu and company and in the absence of any evidence to controvert the statement of account in Ex.P17, the learned Judge ultimately held that the said Sarojini Ammal, the First Respondent herein, should render accounts in respect of half-share of the deceased Srinivasalu Naidu in the Partnership Firm till it got dissolved on 4.5.1980.

5. While this finding was considered by the Division Bench in the Original Side Appeal, accepting the said finding, the Division Bench has observed as follows:

“16. A plain reading of the above Section would not lend any support to the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant for the reason that admittedly either there was no final settlement of accounts or not contract to the contrary was entered and in such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that no property was passed from the dissolved partnership firm to the new Partnership Firm and therefore, the Third Defendant has to render accounts till the firm got dissolved on 4.5.1980.”

6. In this Review Application, the Petitioners seek review of the above finding on the ground as to whether the First Respondent, viz., Sole Appellant in the O.S.A has to render accounts of the Partnership Firm, viz., M. Srinivasalu Naidu and Company only upto 4.5.1980 when the said Srinivasalu Naidu died or for the period thereafter. This ground is raised in terms of Section 14,16, 37 and 50 of t