IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 AS.No. 345 of 1996() -------------------- OS.228/1992 of ADDIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S)/DEFENDANT NO.1: -------------- MEETHALE KALLERI KUMARAN, KONGATTA, POST PATHAYAKUNNU, THALASSERY BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT NO.2: --------------- 1. ALAKKADAN PRAMEELA, KOLAKKAT HOUSE, PATTIAM AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY. 2. ALAKKADAN LAKSHI, DO DO ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C FOR R1 SRI.A.C.VENUGOPAL FOR R1 SRI.E.V. NAYANAR THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NOS.2228/96,2021/97 & 2229/96 IN A.S.NO.345/96 DISMISSED 5.8.2011. SD/= P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE. cl P. BHAVADASAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.345 OF 1996 ............................................. Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.228/1992 by the Sub Court, Thalassery decreeing the suit for dissolution of partnership, the first defendant in the suit has come up in appeal. 2. A partnership firm was instituted in 1979 to run a theatre by name 'Friends Talkies' and registered under the Indian Partnership Act. One of the partners in the original partnership, Puthiyadath Santha, released her right to other partners namely Uchambally Kumaran, defendant Nos.1 and 2 as per release deed dated 25.12.1982. On the retirement of Santha, the plaintiff was taken as a partner and a fresh deed of partnership was executed on the same day between Uchambally Kumaran and parties to the suit. At the relevant time Uchambally Kumaran was admittedly the Managing Partner. Thereafter according to the plaintiff, the first defendant was managing the affairs of the firm and he was looking after the accounts. Alleging that after A.S.NO.345 OF 1996 : 2 : the expiry of each financial year no account was submitted or any audit report forwarded to other partners, the suit was filed. 3. In the objection filed by the first defendant it is stated that he is not the managing partner and as such he is not liable for any amounts. According to him, the business is not a profitable one. It is the managing partner who has to keep the accounts and not the first defendant. 4. On the pleadings issues were raised. Evidence consists of testimony of PWs 1 to 3 and Exhibits marked as Exts.A1 to A56. On the side of defendants DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.B1 to B17 and Exts.X1 to X4(e) were marked. 5. On an evaluation of the materials the court below found that even though U. Kumamran retired and the first defendant became the partner in the firm, he did stepped into the shoes of U. Kumaran and as such he is the managing partner and he is liable to the account of the business. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the first defendant entered the firm in the place of U. Kumaran he is A.S.NO.345 OF 1996 : 3 : the Managing Partner and he was managing the affairs of the firm and as such he is liable. 6. There is no challenge to the preliminary decree as such in the appeal. The only objection appears is that there are observations in the judgment of the court below about the managing partner, which is not true. At that time when he had alleged to become a managing partner of the firm, he was employed in KSEB and it is not possible for him to manage the affairs of the firm. That observation according to the appellant is injurious to him. 7. It is significant to note that no liability whatsoever is cast on the managing partner of the firm. The lower court noticed that the other two partners after the retirement of U. Kumaran were not managing the affairs of the partnership firm. No liability as such has been cast on the first defendant in the status of the managing partner. 8. It is noticed by the trial court on retirement of U. Kumaran that the 1st defendant came in as a partner and stepped into the shoes of U. Kumaran. The lower court has also observed that in all probabilities, the first A.S.NO.345 OF 1996 : 4 : defendant has been looking after the affairs of the firm since the other two parties are women. The fact that the lower court has treated the first defendant as managing the affairs of the firm. It does not much of a difference as no liability is cast on him in that status. 9. It is evident that both the plaintiff and defendants desire dissolution of the firm. Right of the first defendant is well protected by the claim in the preliminary decree. There is nothing to indicate in the preliminary decree that the first defendant is sought to be made liable as a Managing Partner. Thus there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. cl A.S.NO.345 OF 1996 : 5 : P. BHAVADASAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.345 OF 1996 ............................................. 5th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT