RAJENDERPAL SINGH BHATIA Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm Royal Safe Company, rendition of accounts and partition of the immovable properties of the firm. The plaintiff is the son of late defendant No. 1 Joginder Singh, who died during pendency of the suit, and the brother of defendants 2 to 5. The plaintiff had 20% share, whereas defendants 1 to 5 had 15%, 20%, 20%, 15% and 10% share respectively in the said partnership firm. The partnership firm owned Property No. C-114, Naraina Phase-I, New Delhi and also held tenancy rights in respect of Properties No. 13/39, Western Eastern Area, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and G-26, NDSE, Part-I, New Delhi. It is an admitted fact that the partnership firm discontinued its business in September, 1979. The case of the plaintiff is that neither the firm has been dissolved nor have its above-referred immovable properties been partitioned. Some portions of property No. C-114, Naraina Phase-I and a portion of Property No. 13/39, Western Eastern Area, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi are stated to have been let out. The case of the plaintiff is that despite his repeatedly asking the defendants to dissolve the firm and render accounts of the rent received by them, they have failed to do so. The plaintiff has accordingly sought dissolution of the partnership firm, rendition of accounts in respect of the rent realized from letting out the properties of the firm, as well as 1/5th share in the immovable properties of the firm. He has also sought appointment of a Local Commissioner to effect the partition of the immovable properties by metes and bounds, besides seeking declaration that he is the owner of 1/5th share in those properties.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1, 2 and 5, namely, Joginder Singh, and his sons Shri Gurbachan Singh and Jitender Singh filed a joint written statement, contesting the suit. Separate written statements, contesting the suit, were filed by defendants 3 and 4, namely, Shri Surinder Singh and Shri Satvinder Singh respectively. Defendants no.1,2 and 5 took a preliminary objection that the suit, as framed, is not maintainable since the plaintiff was simultaneously seeking dissolution of firm as well as partition and is also barred by limitation. They also took a preliminary objection that since the plaintiff sought dissolution of the partnership firm vide his letter dated 15.07.1979, which was followed by a regular Dissolution Deed dated 22.09.1979, and the parties had acted upon the same ever since then, the plaintiff abandoned all his alleged rights to claim dissolution/partition and is now estopped from claiming the same. It is also alleged in the written statement of defendants 1, 2 and 5 that the plaintiff had omitted two properties which had fallen to his share and those were N-29, Gali No. 4, Anand Parbat Industrial Area and 53, M.M. Road. The case set up by them in this regard is that a part of Property No. N-29, Anand Parbat Industrial Area which belonged to defendants 1 and 2 was being used by defendant No. 1 for carrying business in partnership with defendant No. 5, but, on dissolution of the firm Royal Safe Company, he and defendant No. 5 shifted their business to C-114, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, whereas the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 Surinder Singh were allowed/leased out the whole of the said premises. It is also alleged that on dissolution of the firm on 22.09.1979, property No. C-114, Naraina Industrial Area, fell to the share of defendants 1, 2 and 5. According to these defendants, on dissolution of the firm, the properties of the firm were divided into six portions on the lines, suggest by the plaintiff. The first set comprising the entire rented accommodation at G-26, NDSE Part-I and a portion of property No.C-114, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, came to the share of defendant No.1, who was also given the firm Royal Safe Company (South), the second set consisting of a part of property No. 13/39, Western Extension Area, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh and part of property No. C-114, Naraina Industrial Area, came to the share of defendant No. 2, Gurbachan Singh, who was authorized to use the name Royal Safe Company (Karol Bagh). The third set comprising a part of the ground floor of property No. 53, M.M. Road and half of the factory land at Gali No. 4, Anand Parbat Industrial Area came to the share of the plaintiff and it was further agreed that the accommodation at 53 M.M. Road, New Delhi had been given to the plaintiff on rent by defendant No. 1. Similarly, in respect of that part of property at Anand Parbat Industrial Area, which had gone to the share of the plaintiff, he was to pay rent to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff was not given any right to use the name of the firm Royal Safe Company and was to form a new firm of his choice. The fourth set comprising part of Property No. 53 M.M. Road was given to defendant No. 3, who was to be the tenant of defendant No. 1. He was also allotted a hall in the property in Gali No. 4, Anand Parbat. He also was not given any right to use the name of the firm Royal Safe Company. The fifth set comprising part of the ground floor of property No. 53 M.M. Road was given to defendant No. 4 Shri Satvinder Singh, who also was to be a tenant of defendant No. 1 in respect of the said premises and was allowed to use the name Royal Safe Company (M.M. Road). The sixth set comprising part of property No.13/39, WEA, Arya Samaj Road and part of property No. C-114 Naraina Industrial Area, came to the share of defendant No. 5. It is also alleged that the plaintiff of his own, had exchanged his initially allotted properties with defendant No. 5 and it was in the exchange that he got middle portion of property No. 53, M.M. Road and half of the factory plot at N-29 Anand Parbat Industrial Area, whereas defendant No.5 got bigger portion at 13/39, WEA, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh and built up half portion at C-114 Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 4 also took a preliminary objection that since the plaintiff himself sought dissolution of the firm vide letter dated 15.07.1979, which was followed by a regular Dissolution Deed dated 22.09.1979, and the parties had acted upon the same, the suit was not maintainable. It was further stated that on dissolution of the partnership firm, property No. 13/39, WEA, Arya Samaj Road was divided into two parts, one going to the share of defendant No. 2 and the other going to the share of plaintiff, who later exchanged the same with defendant No. 5. It is further stated that defendant No. 5, out of love and affection, gave his share of Shop No. 13/39, WEA, Arya Samaj Road, to defendant No. 4 and, thereafter, a fresh tenancy in his favour was created after surrendering the old tenancy. Taking a plea identical to that of defendants 1, 2 and 5, it is alleged that on dissolution of the firm, defendants 1 and 5 shifted the business which they were carrying under the name of Jayess Corporation in property No. N-29, Anand Parvat Industrial Area to C-114, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I and the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 Surinder Singh were allowed/leased out the whole of the premises at Anand Parbat. He has endorsed the plea of defendants No. 1, 2 and 5 that in order to obtain exemption under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, property No. C-114, Naraina Industrial Area was shown as owned by all the partners though, in fact, it had fallen to the share of defendants 1, 2 and 5, in the dissolution of the firm. Defendant No. 4 has also supported the case set out by defendants 1,2 and 5 as regards six sets of properties on dissolution of the firm with effect from 22.09.1979 and has alleged that the plaintiff, in exchange with defendant No. 5, got middle portion of property No. 53, M.M. Road and half of the factory plot at N-29, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, whereas defendant No. 5 got bigger portion at 13/39, WEA, Arya Samaj Road and built up half portion of C-114, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I.