DAVINDER SINGH Vs. VARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in respect of partnership business which was being carried on by the appellant plaintiff and the respondent defendant in the name and style of M/s Guru Kripa Travels. The suit has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 14th May, 2003 on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that there was any partnership agreement with the defendant. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the appellant-plaintiff claimed that he had entered into a partnership with the respondent-defendant vide partnership deed dated 28th October, 1992 and he had contributed a sum of ` 1,65,000 in the partnership business but he was denied the fruits of the partnership business by the respondent-defendant and therefore he had sought dissolution of the partnership by sending to the respondent-defendant a notice dated 3rd October, 1996 to that effect. The respondent-defendant did not respond to that notice nor rendered the accounts of the partnership business and consequently suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts had to be filed.

(3.) Respondent-defendant filed his written statement and contested the suit and denied the partnership mainly on the ground that there was no partnership entered into between the parties. Regarding the averment made ` 1,65,000/- in the plaint that the plaintiff had contributed a sum of towards the partnership, his reply was that that money was not spent by the plaintiff on account of his share in the partnership firm but the fact was that he had taken a friendly loan of that amount from the plaintiff and the same had been repaid also. He also claimed that bus No. DL-1P-4995 which the plaintiff claimed to be a partnership property, in fact, was exclusively owned by him since he had purchased the same with his own money by taking a loan from Delhi Scheduled Caste Financial Development Corporation and the permit to ply that business also in his name. Regarding the notice dated 3rd October, 1996 sent by the plaintiff for dissolution of the partnership, the defendant's stand was that that notice was uncalled for as there was no partnership in existence and the defendant was within his rights not to take any notice of that notice.