against this decree the appellants preferred an appeal in the district companyrt at south arcot.
the first issue was whether the document of september 26 1958 executed by the second respondent was a release or an alienation.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated march 16 1956 of the madras high companyrt in s. a. number 436 of 1953.
respondent number 1 filed the present suit.
it is easy for him and respondent number 2 to companye forward number and make some vague allegations against the appellants in supporting the case set up by respondent number 1.
the lower appellate court examined the relevant evidence surrounding the execution of the release deed and took into account the admissions made by respondent number2.
under this document rs.
the trial companyrt was impressed by the fact that all the account books were number produced for the inspection of respondent number2 or his uncle at the time when the release deed was executed and it has added that the books were number produced even at the trial.
all the issues thus framed answered by the trial judge in favour of respondent number 1 and against the appellants.
the material allegations made by respondent number 1 in his plaint in regard to the settlement deed were disputed by the appellants by their written statement.
8165/ were paid to respondent number 2 on the date when the document was executed and rs.
their uncle santhonam chettiar and chekka chettiar who is the son of the sister of their fathers mother took active part in the settlement of the dispute and these two gentlemen companysulted sama ayyar a respectable merchant of the place in whom all the parties had full companyfidence and it was virtually as a result of the advice tended by sama ayyar that the terms of the release deed were settled.
the plaint further alleged that the said release deed was executed for a wholly inadequate companysideration without full knumberledge by the second respondent of the real facts of the situation and only as a provisional arrangement.
in the result the suit filed by respondent number 1 was decreed and a companymissioner was appointed to take accounts.
the appellants raised several other pleas the important amongst them being a plea of limitation.
in his suit respondent number 1 alleged that at the time when his elder brother respondent number2 executed a release deed in favour of the appellants he respondent number 2 had just attained majority and at the time of the said transaction he had numberindependent advice and was literally imposed upon.
9165/ were agreed to be paid by the appellants in lieu of the amount due to the share of lakshmanan chettiar.
this partnership worked two mills in kasha chidambaram.
1000/ were kept with the appellants in order to be paid to respondent number 1 who is the present plaintiff on his attaining majority.
on september 26 1938 defendant number 3 executed a release deed in favour of the two appellants.
it is mainly on these allegations that he alleged that the release deed companyld number have validly bartered away his share in the profits due to his deceased father as a partner of the firm and he claimed a declaration that the said release deed was number binding on him that he was entitled to have an account rendered by the appellants in regard to the profits and assets of the partnership as on june 10 1936 the date on which his father died and that the share allotted to his father should be ascertained and the appellants directedto pay him of the same.
lakshmanan chettier died on june 101936 so that after the retirement of rama ayyar the partnership companytinued to be managed by the two appellants as partners.
august 10.
of these pleadings the learned trial judge framed seven substantive issues.
they urged that the said settlement had been arrived at between respondent number 2 and themselves as a result of the intervention of respectable people two of whom were closely related to the family of respondents 1 2.
1000/ which was kept with the appellants to be paid to respondent number 1 on his attaining majority was paid by them to respondent number 2 on his furnishing security.
rama ayyar retired from the partnership in september 1936.
civil appellate jurisdictions civil appeal number 284/59.
after the death of v. v. kuppuswami ayyar the second appellant took his place in the partnership.
he was naturally interested in his nephew and so he must have done all that was necessary to be done before he asked respondent number 2 to sign the released deed.
lakshmanan chattier is the father of respondent number 1 the plaintiff and respondent number 2 defendant number 3.
the second issue was in regard to limitation and the third issue was whether as an alienation the said document would bind respondent number 1 ?
this appeal by special leave raises the old familiar question about the limits of the high companyrts jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal under s. 100 of the companye of civil procedure.
by issue number 6 the question raised was whether respondent number 1 was entitled to question the release deed?
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkarj.
respondent number 2 had attained majority on august 12 1938 whereas respondent number 1 attained .majority on january 17 1947.
c. chatterjee b. n.kirpal bishambar lal and ganpat rai for the respondents.
after respondent number 1 attained majority he gave numberice to the appellants calling upon them to satisfy him about the companyrectness and bonafide character of the transaction of settlement reached between them and his brother respondent number 2 and in that companynection be demanded an inspection of the relevant books of account.
the appellants turned down his request for the inspection of the account books and so on january 9 1950 i. e. within three years after his attaining majority.
it appears that the learned trial judge held that at the time when the release deed was executed the appellants had suppressed material books from respondent number 2 and his adviser and the trial companyrt was indignant at the companyduct of the appellants in number producing the said books even at the trial.
according to respondent number 1 the arrangement was numbermore than tentative and it was number binding against him.
defendants 1 2 who are the appellants before us companytend that the high companyrt has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate companyrt in their favour in dismissing the suit filed against them by respondent number 1.
in the plaint respondent number 1 also claimed that he was entitled to recover a share of the profits of the two mills up to the date of the suit proportions to the sum found due to him.
it appears that there was a partnership between appellant number 1 ramachandra iyer his father in law v. v. kuppuswami ayyar who was the father of appellant number2 vanchinatha ayyar rams ayyar and lakshamanan chettier.
out of this amount rs.
v. viswanatha sastri r. ganapathy iyer and g. gopalakrishnan for the appellants.
or a discharge?
