BHAGWANTI Vs. KANSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 31.1.2001. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs which was filed for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that appellants/plaintiffs filed the subject suit on the ground that the late husband of appellant No.1 had entered into a partnership with the original defendant-Shri Kanshi Ram, who has since expired and is now represented by his legal heirs/respondents. THE late husband of appellant No.1-Shri Hari Kishan was the allottee of a shop No.136 at Shankar Road Market, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. A partnership deed of February, 1963 was entered into between Shri Hari Kishan and the original defendant-Shri Kanshi Ram. As per this partnership deed, a bakery business was to be run in the back portion of shop No. 136. THE front portion was being used by Shri Hari Kishan for his paints business. As per the partnership deed, the late defendant-Shri Kanshi Ram was responsible for running of the business, as he was already running a bakery business. Since the complete business was to be managed by late defendant-Shri Kanshi Ram, he was entitled to 75% share of the profits and complete losses and Shri Hari Kishan was entitled to 25% of the profits of the business. A sum of Rs.185/- per month was to be paid to Shri Hari Kishan every month and which amount was adjustable towards his share of profit. It was alleged by the appellants/plaintiffs that appellant No.1 was told about the business by her husband a few days before his death on 14.7.1981. Since the defendant-Shri Kanshi Ram failed to render accounts of the partnership business, the subject suit came to be filed on 13.7.1984.

(3.) THE trial Court has given a finding with respect to this issue while dealing with respect to issue No. 3 and issue Nos. 1 and 2. THE trial Court has given the below mentioned relevant findings holding that the relationship between the parties was of a landlord and tenant and not partners in the partnership business by observing as under:-