THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1218 of 2009 08.4.2010 Between: Manchineella Venkateswara Rao & Son, represented by its Proprietor – Manchineella Om Naga Prasad …Petitioner and Smt.V.Dhanalakshmi, W/o.Kannayya Naidu Venugopal …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1218 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff who is none other than his sister is the respondent. Second appeal is filed against the reversing judgment of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Eluru, in A.S.No.80 of 2004 dated 02.7.2009 whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, in O.S.No.990 of 2001 was reversed and the suit was partly decreed for refund of a sum of Rs.60,000/- to plaintiff. In this judgment, the parties are referred to by their status in the suit. The plaintiff instituted the suit for rendition of accounts of the deposit amount made by plaintiff in defendant’s business and for payment of the amount due with interest at 18% per annum. The case of plaintiff is that the father of plaintiff and defendant, Manchineella Venkateswara Rao was engaged in cloth business, Sri Venkata Prasad Cloth Stores. He died on 10.12.1999. The defendant then took over the business along with all account books. During his life time, father took money from the plaintiff agreeing to repay with interest at 18% per annum. The plaintiff did not maintain any account and account books maintained by the defendant show the amounts lying in deposit in the name of defendant. In spite of requests, defendant did not render the accounts and therefore the suit, after issuing legal notices. The suit was opposed by the defendant denying plaint allegations. He admitted that his mother Devagiramma used to deposit some amounts in the business and that no amount is lying to the credit of plaintiff. He further alleged that plaintiff executed settlement deed-cum-gift deed dated 15.1.2000 relinquishing her rights in the cloth business as per account books. The trial Court framed a single issue. The plaintiff gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A14. Defendant gave evidence as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B26. Ex.A10 is the copy of income tax return submitted by father of plaintiff for the year 1998-1999. On considering the evidence, the trial Court disbelieved the plaint case and dismissed the suit. On appeal, though the appellate Court agreed with the trial Court on question of rendition of accounts, directed refund of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit. The counsel for appellant/defendant submits that when the respondent is not the partner, suit for rendition of accounts would not lie and that first appellate Court failed to consider the evidence on record. This Court has perused the judgment of trial Court as well as first appellate Court. First appellate Court relied on the evidence of D.W.1. In his cross-examination he admitted that an amount of Rs.60,000/- is lying to the credit balance of plaintiff at page No.146 of ledger for the financial year 1998-1999 (Ex.B21). Further, first appellate Court perused the books of accounts and came to the conclusion that the plea of plaintiff that an amount of Rs.60,000/- was deposited in the business of the father was true. Even the income tax returns which were marked as documents support the case of plaintiff. Thus the case involved the appreciation of evidence of D.W.1 and the documents like income tax returns and khata ledgers maintained by defendant himself. Therefore the question of law does not arise. The submission that suit for rendition of accounts does not arise is misconceived. The suit was a comprehensive one to render the account of the deposit made by the petitioner. The second appeal is therefore misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) April 08, 2010. YS