Two civil appeals concerning partnership firms in India. In the first appeal (Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 4237 of 2015), the appellant, M/s Shivraj Reddy & Brothers, and its deceased partner's legal representatives challenged a suit filed by respondent No. 1, S. Raghuraj Reddy, for dissolution and accounts. The trial court granted the suit, but the appellants argued it was time-barred due to a deceased partner. The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the duty to dismiss time-barred suits.

In the second appeal (Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 23143-23144 of 2016), the appellants, including M/s Shivraj Reddy & Brothers and individual defendants, challenged a decree obtained by respondent No. 1 for dissolution and accounts. The plaintiff filed for dissolution and accounts, and a preliminary decree was granted. The appellants argued against the direction to tender accounts beyond three years before filing the suit. The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the judgments of the lower courts.

First Appeal (Civil Appeal @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 4237 of 2015):

1. Parties:

   • Appellants: M/s Shivraj Reddy & Brothers and its deceased partner's legal representatives.
   • Respondent No. 1: S. Raghuraj Reddy

2. Background:

   • Plaintiff sued for dissolution and accounts in 1996.
   • Trial court granted the suit in 1998.
   • Appellants argued it was time-barred due to a deceased partner.

3. Submissions:

   • Appellants argued the firm dissolved upon the partner's death, making the suit time-barred.

4. Court's Decision:

   • Court upheld trial court's decision.
   • Emphasized duty to dismiss time-barred suits.
   • Concluded suit was filed beyond the limitation period.

Second Appeal (Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) No(s). 23143-23144 of 2016):

1. Parties:

   • Appellants: M/s Shivraj Reddy & Brothers and individual defendants.
   • Respondent No. 1: S. Raghuraj Reddy

2. Background:

   • Plaintiff filed for dissolution and accounts in 1997.
   • Preliminary decree granted in 1998.

3. Submissions:

   • Appellants challenged decree, argued against direction to tender accounts beyond three years before filing the suit.

4. Court's Decision:

   • Court dismissed appeals.
   • Upheld judgments of lower courts.
   • Stated concurrent findings in favor of plaintiff not subject to interference.