Ivan D' Gama vs Marshall Anthony

Ms. R. Mala, J. - The appellants, who are the defendants 2 and 3 have challenged the concurrent finding of the Courts below, passing of decree of dissolution of partnership form and also rendering accounts stating that the first respondent filed the suit for dissolution of partnership firm and rendering accounts stating that the partnership firm has been registered under Partnership Act on 03.04.1993, wherein, the remunerations of the Managing Partner and other partners have been mentioned and only the second defendant is the authorised person to operate the bank account and he is possession of account and all the relevant documents. But, he has not furnished any account and hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the above stated relief.

The defendants have raised the defence stating that the partnership firm has been came into effect on 03.04.1993 and the plaintiff has not contributed anything and hence, there is no partnership firm and he is not entitled for accounts and he has not produced the original document and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

The trial Court, after considering the pleadings, viz., plaint and written statement, framed necessary issues and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit, against, which the defendants 2 and 3 have filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment decree of the trial Court. Against which, the defendants 2 and 3 have filed the present second appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on records.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the original partnership deed has not been filed by the plaintiff. In paragraph No.7 of the plaint, it was specifically mentioned that the original partnership deed and other relevant documents are with the second defendant, but, there is no denial on the part of the second defendant in his written statement that too specific denial. In such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants does not merit acceptance. It is also specifically mentioned in the written statement that the registered partnership deed has been come into effect on 03.04.1993.

Both the Courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence and come to the correct conclusion and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.