JUDGMENT K. Sadasivan, J. First defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal. Himself, the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 4 and others had entered into a partnership for conducting fishing operations in the sea. The partnership functioned from 15th December 1963 to 25th February 1965. Thereafter, it failed resulting in the sale of the fishing boat. The plaintiff in the circumstances, filed the suit for amounts advanced by him. The trial court dismissed the suit as under section 69 (1) of the Partnership Act the suit is not maintainable. But the learned appellate Judge has reversed that decision, and has passed a preliminary decree allowing the plaintiff to recover 1/20th share from the partnership assets. The learned Judge has also, in the alternative, allowed the plaintiff to recover the plaint amount in case it was found that the accounts were suppressed or that the defendants were guilty of negligence in maintaining the accounts. Amounts are allowed to be recovered personally from the 1st defendant. The suit though not maintainable under section 69 (1) or (2) of the Partnership Act, is maintainable under section 69(3) (a) of the Act. On this point there is no controversy between the parties. But the question that really arises for consideration is whether the Court is competent to pass a decree for the plaint amount as such personally against the 1st defendant. Normally, such a suit namely, a suit for a specific sum of money is not maintainable under section 69 the Act. The partner suing can get only his proportionate share of the assets found to belong to the partnership. "Where a partner in a dissolved firm bring a suit against other partners in the firm to recover specific sums of money on the allegation that the accounts were gone into and the sums were found due to him the Court can pass a decree for accounts if it is not satisfied that there was a proper settlement thereof and it is not necessary that the suit should be withdrawn by the plaintiff or dismissed by the Court on the ground that the relief claimed was not the proper relief." [Sheo Dutt v. Pushi Ram (A.I.R. 1947 All. 229).] Thus a suit to recover a specific sum of money is not a proper suit. 229).] Thus a suit to recover a specific sum of money is not a proper suit. The aggrieved party, if at all, can only bring a suit for account, and can claim his due share whatever that be, found on such settlement of accounts. But in the peculiar circumstances of this case, I think the alternative relief granted by the learned appellate Judge must be maintained. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 were actually in management of the partnership and the entire proceeds were appropriated by them or distributed among whomsoever they liked without paying anything to the plaintiff. He was completely kept in the dark as to the functioning of the partnership. Ultimately the fishing boat, which was the sole asset of the partnership, was also sold without reference to him. Proper accounts are not being maintained. D.W.1 admitted before Court that Rs. 34,000 was collected towards partnership capital and that regular accounts in the shape of were not maintained. It is under these circumstances that the alternative relief of a decree for the plaint amount charged personally on the 1st defendant had to be passed. The suit aims mainly at the enforcement of the plaintiff's right for accounts of the dissolved firm as contemplated in section 69 (3) (a) of the Act and that relief had been granted in the first instance. But from the circumstances of the case it was apprehended that the accounts would either be suppressed or fabricated by defendants 1, 2 and 4 who were at the helm of affairs with reference to the partnership. In such a contingency the Court observed that unless provisions are made in the preliminary decree the plaintiff's right is likely to be defeated. It is to avoid such a situation befalling that the alternative relief has been granted to the plaintiff. It is well within the power of the court to indicate the lines on which the preliminary decree is to be passed so as to mete out justice to the parties. In N. Gangulu v. N. Chengamma A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 237 such a decree was passed and that was not disturbed by the High Court. In that case, "plaintiff brought a suit against 4 defendants. He alleged that a partnership was formed between them and that he contributed Rs. 1,745 towards the capital and that the defendants suppressed the amount and were causing him loss. 237 such a decree was passed and that was not disturbed by the High Court. In that case, "plaintiff brought a suit against 4 defendants. He alleged that a partnership was formed between them and that he contributed Rs. 1,745 towards the capital and that the defendants suppressed the amount and were causing him loss. He prayed for a decree for dissolution of partnership and a direction to the defendants to pay him the amount due to him including profits and interest. It was found that plaintiff's case was substantially true and he was granted a decree for the amount claimed with profits on the ground that as the defendants had suppressed the accounts presumption was against themt I see therefore, no reason to disturb the alternative relief granted, by the lower court. But in the matter of imposing personal liability I should think that defendants 1, 2 and 4 should have been treated on the same footing and a personal decree should have been granted against all the three of them. In the result, the decree of the court below is confirmed subject to the modification that in the alternative the plaintiff is allowed to recover the plaint amount personally from defendants 1, 2 and 4. The cross-objection relates to the costs of the suit. The learned appellate Judge has directed the parties to suffer their costs. This direction, I think, is not proper in view of the fact that the plaintiff has succeeded considerably. I would therefore, direct the plaintiff to recover one half of his costs in the courts below from defendants 1, 2 and 4. The Second Appeal is thus allowed.