BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal filed under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 4.2.2003 passed by the learned trial court whereby the suit filed by the appellant for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the appellant has claimed to be a partner in a firm M/s. Sohi Goods (India) and as per the appellant the said partnership firm comprised of two partners i.e. the appellant himself and the respondent and the firm was carrying on the business of transport at premises No.75/3, Roshanara Road, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi. The appellant also submitted that no formal partnership deed was executed between the parties. It was also the case of the appellant that in the year 1976 the said firm got itself registered for allotment of a plot with the MCD and a sum of Rs. 5,500.00 was deposited by the firm vide receipt No. 520012 dated 25.9.76. It was further claimed that the MCD in fact had allotted a plot bearing No. BG-335, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi vide allotment letter No. RPC/SGTN/313 dated 22.1.87 in the name of the said firm. It was claimed that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the MCD after having learnt the fact that the respondent was playing a fraud upon the plaintiff/appellant to get the lease deed of the said plot executed in his favour by concealing the correct status of the said partnership firm. It was further claimed that the appellant had withdrawn the said suit after the MCD in its written statement took a stand that the said plot stands in the name of the partnership firm. It was further stated by the appellant that since the respondent had turned dishonest to usurp the share of the appellant in the said plot and hence the appellant approached the civil court to claim decree for dissolution of the partnership firm and for rendition of accounts. It was also the case of the appellant that the respondent had raised unauthorized construction over the said plot and he was trying to transfer and alienate the said plot without the consent and permission of the appellant.

(3.) BASED on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues: