NARAIN BARALIA Vs. RAJESHWAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit filed in 1982 for winding up the affairs of dissolved partnership, namely. Regal Theatre, by this order I am to decide an application by Mr. Vinay Kumar filed under Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was filed on 21-9-l987. It is a brief application. It merely states that the applicant has purchased the share of the plaintiff under an agreement dated 10-2-1987 and. thus, having become the absolute assignee of the entire share of the plaintiff, the assignor, he has a right to. tie substituted in place of the plaintiff and to continue the suit. it is also staled,that because of the agreement as such. all rights and interests of the plaintiff in the present suit stand assigned to the applicant.

(2.) This application has been opposed by the defendants. It has been denied that there has been any assignment of the share of the plaintiff and further that thedeedofassignment date 10-2-1987 purports to transfer and assign the alleged interests of the plaintiff in immovable, 'property and was not a valid document being not properly stamped and not registered. The defendants also denied that the plaintiff could sell or assign his share which is subject-matte of this suit. Plaintiff in his reply,thuugh admitting the agreement, stated that the assignee Vinay Kumar had no right to interfere in the management or administration of the partnership business or affairs or to require any account of the partnership or to inspect the partnership books but was merely entiatle to receive the share of profits to which the plaintiff would otherwise be entitled winding up of the firm and for ascertaining that share and to an account as from the date of the dissolution.

(3.) Under the agreement in question there has been a reference to the present suit and then it is stated that on a total consideration of Rs. 10 lakh being paid by Vinay Kumar to the plaintiff "the share, rights litles and interests including tenancy rights and obligations of all kinds whatsoever" of the plaintiff in the partnership shall vest in Vinay Kumar. Vinay Kumar, thus. not only. took over the right of the plaintiff bat also his. obligations. Then it is stated that the plaintiff had been in occupation of a flat bearing No. 1/40, Regal Building, and bad been enjoying other benifits on the basis of various courts orders and that his possession of that flat was even otherwise as well. Actual physical possession of this flat was delivered by the plaintiff to Vinay Kumar. One of the terms of the agreement is that from the date of the agreement shall be the sole and entire, responsibility of Vinay Kumar to prosecute and defend the present proceedings or "any other proceedings initiated in the said subject-matter at his own costs". Of course the plaintiff was to assist and help Vinay Kumar in all reasonable manner. The plaintiff also executed an itrevocable power of attorney in favour of Shri Vinay Kumar.