Ownership of property alleged as partnership assets must be proven, and previous suits on the same cause of action bar subsequent suits under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

R. HEMALATHA, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below has filed the present second appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.129 of 2005 before II Additional Sub Court, Salem, for dissolution of the partnership firm "Hercules Weigh Bridge" and for rendition of accounts of the said firm. He also prayed for 1/8th share in the net assets and profits of the partnership firm.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.

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

4.1. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 and one T.K.Kuppusamy (since deceased) entered into a partnership agreement dated 22.02.1984 (Ex.A1) for purchase of a land in Jagirammapalayam Village, Salem. The partnership firm was at will and for the purpose of conducting a business in the name and style of 'Hercules Weigh Bridge'.

4.2. All the partners decided to purchase a property in the name of the first defendant and T.K.Kuppusamy. The fifth defendant contributed a sum of Rs.10,000/- and other partners contributed a sum of Rs.7,200/- per head towards capital of the firm. It was agreed among the partners to construct a weigh bridge.

4.3. Subsequently, the partnership firm purchased 6152 sq.ft of land in survey number 223/10A1 of Jagirammapalayam Village under three registered sale deeds dated 21.03.1984 (Ex.A3), 30.03.1984 (Ex.A4) and 04.04.1984 (Ex.A5). After the purchase of the property, weigh bridge and a building were constructed with the funds of the firm.

4.4. On 25.04.1984, a codicil (Ex.A2) was executed through which the partners agreed to open a bank account which would be operated by the first defendant and T.K.Kuppusamy.

4.5. Though the first defendant was initially paying the profits to the plaintiff through cheques, he stopped paying the same since 2002. He did not also give proper accounts to the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the government acquired 2637 sq.ft. of land in the property purchased by the partnership firm, in order to form a four way lane.

4.6. A sum of Rs.19,18,525.88/- was paid as compensation for the acquired land. The first defendant received the entire amount from the government. When the plaintiff approached the first defendant and requested him to pay his share of the compensation amount, the first defendant did not give him proper reply. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 22.03.20004 (Ex.A6) to the first defendant calling upon him to pay 1/8th share of the compensation amount to him. The first defendant received the said notice and sent a reply dated 15.04.2004 (Ex.A7), which according to the plaintiff contained false allegations. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.325/2004 before the Principal Sub Court, Salem, for recovery of 1/8th share in the compensation amount.

4.7. On 30.10.2003, the first defendant executed a settlement deed (Ex.B5) in respect of the suit property in favour of his wife and children (defendants 13 to 16). The said settlement deed is not binding on the plaintiff. Subsequently, the defendants 13 to 16 executed a sale deed in respect of 634 sq.ft. of land in favour of the 17th defendant. The said sale is