JAI RANI PURI Vs. VINOD KUMAR PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit for rendition of accounts and in the alternative for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts, plaintiff No.1, namely, Smt. Jai Rani Puri, has filed this application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to defendant No.1 to pay from the profits of the firm namely, M/s Raj Kumar Singh Puri, atleast a sum of Rs.75,000.00 by way of ad hoc arrangement and subject to adjustment of accounts on final settlement/rendition of accounts, with a further direction for payment of Rs.5,000.00 per month to her as maintenance.

(2.) The said firm came into existence on 1 April 1963 when a partnership deed was executed between Ram Kumar Singh Puri(husband of plaintiff No.1/applicant), Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri and Vinod Kumar Puri, defendant No.1 herein, each having a share of 33-1/3%. There was a change in the constitution of the firm on 1 April 1976 when Shri Arun Puri, defendant No.2 herein and son of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri was taken as a partner with 14% interest in the firm. Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri's interest in the firm was reduced to 20% and that of Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri and Vinod Kumar Puri to 33% each. Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri died on 30 December 1989, leaving behind the applicant - his widow, S/Shri Vivek Puri and Arun Puri as his sons and Smt. Arti Kapoor- his daughter, plaintiffs No.1, 2, defendants No.2 and 5 respectively. On the death of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri, the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 5 inherited his 20% share in the firm. Shri Arun Puri, defendant No.2, besides his 14% independent share, also became entitled to 1/4th share as a legal heir of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri. According to the plaintiffs, though the firm stood dissolved on 30 December 1989, the surviving partners, namely, Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri, Vinod Kumar Puri and Arun Puri continued to carry on the same business without rendering any account and paying any share to the legal representatives of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri. On 8 December 1992 Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri also expired, leaving behind his son Manoj Puri and daughter Manisha Puri, defendants No. 3 and 4 herein. His wife had pre-deceased him. The stand of the plaintiffs is that on the death of Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri, the firm again stood dissolved but the surviving partners, namely Vinod Kumar Puri and Arun Puri continued to carry on the same business under the same name and style without rendering any accounts to the legal representatives of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri and Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri. According to them all efforts for settlement of accounts having failed, they had no option but to file the present suit.

(3.) The suit is primarily being resisted by defendant No.1, inter alia, on the pleas that:(i) the partners of the said firm were also the members of a Joint Hindu Family, representing three branches of the family headed by late Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri, late Shri Satish Chand Kumar Singh Puri and Shri Vinod Kumar Puri, defendant No.1; (ii) after the death of Shri Ram Kumar Singh Puri, there was a family settlement amongst the members of the Joint Hindu Family and all the properties belonging to the joint family, including the business and assets of the said firm were agreed to be partitioned amongst the family members; (iii) in the family settlement, dated 25 October 1990, the important terms/points of settlement were duly reduced into writing and were signed by the representatives of all the three branches of the Joint Hindu Family and (iv) the properties and assets of the firm were also partitioned in the said family settlement and all its assets and liabilities as on 30 December 1989 were taken over by defendant No.1. Thus the stand of the said defendant has been that the assets of the firm as also other family properties having been partitioned vide the said family settlement, there was no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs.