Pushpa Sathyanarayana JUDGMENT
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.
1. Aggrieved by the unanimous decision of decretal of the suit for dissolution of the unregistered firm, the second defendant has filed this Second Appeal.
2. The suit was one for dissolution of the first defendant unregistered Firm "Kody Anand Real Estate", for direction to the second defendant to render property and full account of the first defendant firm and for grant of decree for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from in any manner alienating the suit properties or any part of the same without consent and concurrence of the plaintiff.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that she had joined the second defendant to start a partnership firm in the name and style of "Kody Anand Real Estate" which is the first defendant by contributing 50% of the share each and also opened a Bank account in the name of the first defendant by executing necessary partnership letter. It is stated that the second defendant canvassed his NRI friends and received funds from them and invested in the Real Estate business which is the main purpose of the partnership firm. It is also alleged that cheques and Demand Drafts were received besides cash payments. The further case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were purchased by the second defendant in his capacity as Managing Partner of the firm for the Firm and that though the second defendant had purchased the properties in his name, in the recitals of the sale deeds, it has been stated that the second defendant as Managing Partner of Kody Anand Real Estate and the address given is also the first defendant's address. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the first defendant firm is the owner of the properties and sale deeds have to be executed in favour of the investors and that the partners were to share only the dividends after executing the sales in favour of the prospective purchasers. As the second defendant was attempting to alienate the properties without the knowledge of the plaintiff, a legal notice was issued on 30.6.2010 which was replied by the second defendant with false and untenable allegations. The plaintiff further contended that payment for purchase of the properties was made from the first defendant firm's account with the Canara Bank, Guindy Branch. The plaintiff also claimed that the taxes for the properties purchased were all paid only by her. As the second defendant is trying to grab the properties, the suit has been filed.
4. The second defendant had resisted the suit contending that the partnership firm by name Kody Anand Real Estate was started but remained only on paper as there was not even a single transaction happened. The registration of the properties alleged in the plaint were purchased in his name by paying his personal money. The registration work was done by one Ganapathy, who was a part time employee of Tamil Nadu Hospitals in which the second defendant was a promoter. The defendant totally denied any receipt of money from investors and also denied the use of such money in the purchase of the properties. As the suit has been filed 27 years after the partnership firm was intended to be commenced, according to the second defendant, the suit is barred by limitation. Besides denying the particulars of investors in the plaint, the second defendant alleged that if really the investors had given money for the purchase of properties in India, they would have taken separate action against him or even against the firm for non-performance. The second defendant also had disclosed in his Income Tax returns that the monies were paid only through his HUF account and, therefore, according to him, the pro........