The main legal point established in the judgment is the fiduciary duty of the surviving partner towards the legal representatives of the deceased partner and the inclusion of property in the partnership as per Section 14 of the Partnership Act.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.11.2010 and made in A.S.No.48 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Mannargudi partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007 and made in O.S.No.334 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Valangaiman.

This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 15.11.2010 in A.S.No.48 of 2009 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi, in partly reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2007 in O.S.No.334 of 2004 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Valangaiman.

2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit O.S.No.334 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Valangaiman, for the following reliefs:

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that a partnership had been floated on 20.01.1971 between one Gurunathan Chettiar and one Muthiah. The purpose of the partnership was to run a Cinema Theatre by name "Sri Murugan Talkies". The profit and loss were to be proportionately shared equally. The plaintiffs laid the suit in O.S.No.334 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Valangaiman, for the dissolution of the firm with effect from 26.05.1999 when Gurunatha Chettiar had passed away. They also claimed for allotment of shares in the suit properties and other properties belonging to the firm for rendition of accounts and for other reliefs.

4. The suit was mainly contested on the ground that the relief that has been sought for is barred under Article 5 of the First Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 and also that the property on which the Theatre stood and the machineries and fittings were the selfacquisitions of Mr.Muthiah, the 1st defendant.

5. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. On appeal, the learned Appellate Judge reversed the decree but held that the cutoff date for rendition of accounts by 31.12.2002.

6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following Substantial Questions of Law had been framed:

"1. Whether the suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 claiming their share of profits of the dissolved partnership as the legal heirs of the deceased partner Gurunathan Chettiar was barred under Article 5 of the Limitation Act as pleaded by the appellants?

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable under law in the absence of the plaintiffs/first and second respondents herein failing to prove the due execution and the genuineness of the alleged Will of the deceased Gurunathan Chettiar dated 26.03.1999, Ex.A19?

3. Whether the suit was maintainable in law on the grounds of non-disclosure and non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit as the plaintiffs/first and second respondents themselves pleaded that they were entitled only for life estate and after their lifetime the second respondent's children were entitled to inherit the vested remainder?

4. Whether the claim of the plaintiffs/first and second respondents that the suit property purchased in the court auction held on 16.08.1968 by the appellant for Rs.45,000/-, which was subsequently confirmed by the Principal Subordinate Court at Kumbakkonam on 20.12.1969, could be construed as benami in nature?

5. Whether the Court auction purchased property could be discredited under law by pleading it as a benami transaction?"

7. The facts set forth above to make out a very simple case. A partnership was formed on 20.01.1971. It was successfully carried on till 24.05.1999. On that day, one of the Partners, Tr. Gurunathan Chettiar expired. After the death of the said partner, the surviving partner had leased out the properties to the 2nd defendant @ Rs.24,000/- per year. This amount was divided equally between Muthiah, the surviving Partner and the legal representatives of the deceased Partner Gurunathan Chettiar, namely, Ms.Rajam and Ms.Vijaya, the plaintiffs. These facts are admitted by