NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA Vs. ALKA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of money was decreed in her favour and against the appellant/defendant for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs along with interest @7% p.a w.e.f 30.08.2004 till realization and cost.

(2.) The facts enumerating from the record are that the appellant and respondent constituted a partnership through a partnership agreement dated 5th April, 2000 to run an institute for preparing students for competitive exams, under the name of Takshila Institute, Paschim Vihar, Rohini and other places. The plaintiff/respondent and wife of appellant/defendant, Deepa Gupta jointly acquired immovable properties including the second floor of the built up property, without roof rights, at Rohini, Delhi. The appellant/defendant allegedly took advantage of the inexperience of the plaintiff/respondent and excluded her from the partnership business and took under his own exclusive control all the funds and assets of the said business. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant along with his wife filed a Suit No. 438/04 for perpetual injunction against the respondent herein, her husband and her brother-in-law, which was subsequently dismissed. The said suit apparently demonstrated the intention of the appellant/defendant to end the partnership with the respondent herein however no dissolution of partnership agreement had taken place. Further, an agreement to sell dated 29.06.2004 called the "Bayana Agreement" was executed, between the appellant/defendant and respondent herein at Delhi in respect of the undivided half share of the respondent herein in respect of the second floor of the built up property in question. It was stated that under the said agreement, in consideration of the sale of the half share of the respondent herein in the said property of the partnership firm, the appellant/defendant had agreed to pay to the respondent herein a sum of Rs.21.5 lakhs. The price of the share of the respondent herein in the said immovable property had been agreed to be between Rs.2 lakhs and the balance Rs.19.5 lakhs was to be paid in lieu of her share of the goodwill of the Institute, her share in the furniture etc. The appellant/defendant sent legal notices dated 29.07.2004 and 30.07.2004 to the respondent herein calling upon her to execute the requisite sale-deed for the property in question and to take the balance of consideration. The respondent herein allegedly executed a sale-deed in respect of her share of the immovable property in favor of the appellant/defendant on 13.08.2004 for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs towards her further rights and interests in the Institute. It was further stated that the appellant/defendant has paid the plaintiff/respondent only Rs.9.5lakhs out of the agreed consideration of Rs.21.5 lakhs, leaving the balance of Rs.12 lakhs due upon him.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant/ defendant, it was stated that the plaintiff/respondent had filed a false and fabricated case. It was further submitted that an unregistered partnership deed dated 05.04.2000 between the plaintiff/respondent and appellant/defendant was only with respect to the Takshila Institute which had been functioning since April 1st, 2000. The appellant/defendant submitted that the plaintiff/respondent was nothing but a sleeping partner in the working of the institution, and the appellant/defendant alone was responsible for the management of the institute. Further, the husband of the plaintiff/respondent was looking after all her interests in the partnership business and regularly actively participated in the activities of the partnership business of the institute. The appellant/defendant has also submitted that the entire balance consideration was paid and only thereafter the plaintiff/respondent affixed her signatures on the sale-deed in respect of the said property. Lastly, the appellant/defendant submitted that the plaintiff/respondent is not entitled to recover any interest or cost from him.