NARAYAN SHAMNANI Vs. RAJENDER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2004 which had reversed the finding of the trial judge dated 25.1.2002. Vide the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2002 the suit filed by the two plaintiffs Rajender Prasad (S/o Sambhu Dayal) and Ram Chandra (S/o Manohar Lal) seeking possession of the suit property (property bearing No.6430, Lady Harding Road, New Delhi) had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had reversed this finding. The suit of the plaintiff had stood decreed.

(2.) THE factual matrix as revealed is that a partnership firm M/s Shambhu Dayal Manohar Lal comprising of three partners namely Shambhu Dayal, Manohar Lal and Banwari Lal had taken on rent the aforenoted suit property at monthly rental of Rs.55/-. Property was then owned by Baba Vikram Singh. Shambhu Dayal died leaving behind his legal representative i.e. his son Rajender Prsad (plaintiff no.1). Manohar Lal, the second partner also died leaving behind his legal representative i.e. his son Ram Chandra (plaintiff no.2). THE present suit had been filed by the aforenoted two persons. Admittedly, at the time of the filing of the suit which was on 18.8.1998 Banwari Lal, the third partner, was alive; he was not joined as a plaintiff. THE contention of the plaintiffs in the present suit was that on 13.7.1998 plaintiff no.1 had gone to the suit premises to get his shutter repaired and to replace old locks with new locks as the old locks had become rusted. On 17.7.1998 when he had gone to the shop to open the shutter he found that the shutter was already opened; defendant no.1 attacked him; matter was reported to the police; defendant no.1 had already put his locks over the shutter. Contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant no.1 had illegally trespassed in the suit property and taken forcible possession in this intervening period of 13.7.1998 to 17.7.1998. Suit for possession had accordingly be filed.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence led before the trial court. The trial judge was of the view that in terms of Section 42 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Act) on the death of one partner unless there was a contract to the contrary, the partnership stood dissolved. Trial Court had noted that the conduct of the parties had not in any manner suggested that there was any contract to the contrary; on the death of the two partners namely Shambhu Dayal and Manohar Lal the partnership stood dissolved. Futher since the property had been tenanted out to the partnership firm, the non-joining of Banwari Lal who was the sole surviving partner was fatal to the suit. Trial judge had returned a finding that Banwari Lal had in fact surrendered the tenancy rights to the erstwhile owner Baba Vikram Singh from whom defendant no.1 vide valid document of purchase had purchased this property on 10.10.1990. Court returned a finding that the plaintiffs had no locus standing to file the present suit; suit was dismissed.