JUDGMENT :

T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. This appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 28.01.2020 passed in Application No. 6611 of 2018 in C.S. No. 380 of 2018.

2. For easy reference, the appellant and respondents will be referred as the plaintiff and defendants respectively as per their rank in the civil suit.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff in the said suit, which was filed for a judgment and decree to direct defendants 1 to 7 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- to the plaintiff being his share in the estimated profit in the firms and concerns together with interest at 18% per annum; to direct defendants 1 and 2 to disclose and render accounts of all the immovable properties purchased by him from and out of the profits of defendants 3, 6, 7 and 9; to grant him a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 7 from operating the bank account standing in the name of the 3rd defendant in the 8th defendant bank; and for granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 6 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property.

4. The applicants in A. No. 6611 of 2018 are close relatives. The 1st defendant is the brother of the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff, the 4th defendant is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff, the 5th defendant is a family friend and, the 6th defendant is a concern in the name and style of "SNS Enterprises" represented by Mr. S. Syed, who is the elder brother of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff would state that his father passed away in the year 1991 leaving behind a cash reserve of Rs. 5,00,000/-. At the relevant time, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were not employed and in the year 1996, with the said money, they established a business under the name and style "Popular Steel", the 7th defendant. The plaintiff would state that though the said concern was projected as a proprietary concern, run by his brother, the 1st defendant, the plaintiff was actively involved in it and developed the business and the turnover increased.

6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant assured him that he will be treated as working partner and payment for the service rendered will be made by giving 1/3rd of the profit. The plaintiff is stated to have established another concern under the name and style "Hameed Trading Company" the 9th defendant. Though the plaintiff was its proprietor, since the 1st defendant was his elder brother, he controlled the affairs of the 9th defendant. After a period of time, a partnership firm was established under the name and style "M/s. Steel World" the 3rd defendant in which, the 4th defendant, the brother-in-law of the plaintiff and, the 5th defendant, a common family friend were indicted as partners along with the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The place of business being, the same place, where the plaintiff was carrying on business under the name and style of the 9th defendant.

7. Further, the plaintiff would state that the 1st defendant, taking advantage of the relationship with the plaintiff, was interfering with the affairs of the business of partnership firm "M/s. Steel World" the 3rd defendant and it would be relevant to place on record that the 1st defendant has married the sister of the 4th defendant and both of the defendants were not only close with each other, but would not even oppose one another. The plaintiff would further state that because of his ability and active work, the business grew and the monies were received by the 1st defendant sharing the plaintiff and that his share will be given by properly investing the same in various assets. The 1st defendant, being the elder brother of the plaintiff, he had no reason to suspect the 1st defendant. However, the plaintiff was betrayed and all monies earned in the three businesses were diverted by the 1st defendant. It is stated that the relations