IMPORTANT POINT
Once plaintiff is not entitled to passing of a preliminary decree for partition, all that he can seek in suit is passing of a decree for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts as per existing partnership deed.

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This batch of civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of order dated 01.02.2016 in I.A. No.1114 of 2015 in O.S. No.747 of 2015, on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

2. The facts in a nutshell leading to the filing of these CMAs are stated hereunder. The plaintiff filed O.S. No.747 of 2015 against the appellants and others for multiple reliefs, viz; (a) to pass a preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property, admeasuring 7250 sq. yards, situated at 7-1-208/2 in Sy. No.157, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, by metes and bounds, divide the immovable property of the said partnership firm and allot ?th share to the plaintiff; (b) to grant dissolution of the partnership firm by name “M/s. Satyam Brothers & Co.” in respect of the property shown in (a) supra; and (c) to render true and correct account of the partnership business to the plaintiff and based on the same to pass a money decree for the share of the plaintiff.

3. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that himself and defendant Nos.1 to 14 are the partners of a registered partnership firm by name ‘M/s. Satyam Brothers & Co.’ as per the partnership deed dated 23.07.2005. That his son, by name, Mr. B. Srinivasa Rao, is also one of the partners in the above firm and that since he is sailing with the plaintiff he is not impleaded as a party to the suit. That though the said partnership firm was originally constituted sometime in the Month of June 1978, vide partnership deed dated 26.06.1978, the plaintiff had been the partner from the inception, that he had been continuing as such even on the date of filing of the suit and that the business of the partnership firm is running of a cinema hall by name “Satyam Theatre”, at Ameerpet, Hyderabad. That the business of the partnership firm is being managed by defendant No.1, that though the cinema hall is situated in a very prime area, the profits of the partnership business are not being distributed correctly, that the books of account of the partnership business are also not being maintained correctly and that the plaintiff has been requesting defendants 1 to 14 to account for the income and profits of the partnership firm, but the said defendants have been withholding the same. That the plaintiff has recently come to know that defendant Nos.1 to 4 entered into a development agreement on 27.07.2011 with defendant No.15 - M/s. Asian Builders and Developers in respect of the property of the partnership firm, without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is not sharing information about the business activity of the partnership firm. That defendant No.1 has issued a notice of dissolution of the partnership firm, vide legal notice dated 02.05.2011 informing the other partners that the business of the partnership firm will run only till it is legally and lawfully dissolved. That though the partnership firm stood dissolved on account of the said notice, defendant No.1 is trying to withdraw the said notice, which is impermissible in law. That the partnership firm stood dissolved by the said notice without any further event, that defendant No.1 is running the cinema hall even after the notice, but not disclosing the income correctly and that the plaintiff is under the impression that the notice of dissolution of the partnership firm will be adhered to and defendant No.1 would conduct the partnership business only for the purpose of working out the dissolution which has been brought about by defendant No.1 himself. That the partnership business stood dissolved from the date of the legal notice issued by defendant No.1, but however, the plaintiff as a partner is entitled to dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts. That the plaintiff notionally estimated the value of his share of income in the partnership firm at Rs.10,00,000/- per annum subject