PARAMJEET SINGH Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the objection taken in the written statement, the following preliminary issue was framed on 29th July, 1991 :

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit alleging that under the partnership deed dated 1.4.1969 plaintiff, defendants No. 1 & 4 have been carrying on business in the name of M/s. Calcutta Soap Mills at D-1/1, Rana Pratap Bagh and the share of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in the profits and losses was 40% each, while that of defendant No. 4-20% Plot No. 112, Block-A in Wazirpur Industrial Area was leased out by DDA-defendant No. 5 to the partnership firm and the lease deed was registered vide Registration No. 2452 dated 15.6.1974. Partnership business was shifted in 1974 from said D-1 /1, Rana Pratap Bagh to the building constructed on the allotted plot in 1973. Defendant No. 4 retired from the partnership-firm on 30.4.1975. A new firm by the name of M/s. Calcutta Soap Oil Industries was thereafter constituted on 1.5.1975. Defendants 2 & 3, brothers of the plaintiff were taken in the firm as partners in addition to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. Share of the plaintiff in the profits and losses remained the same. It is alleged that on the assurance given by defendant No. 1, father of the plaintiff that the amount of the share in the aforesaid plot and building would be paid to him, the plaintiff signed the relinquishment deed dated 11.9.1976 relinquishing the right in the leased plot and the building. However, the relinquishment deed was not presented for registration as the amount due to the plaintiff was not paid. It is stated that defendants 1 to 3 started compelling the plaintiff to retire from the firm and forced him to sign the dissolution deed in March, 1982. In para No. 4 of the dissolution deed, it is mentioned that a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 has been paid tentatively to the plaintiff by means of four postdated cheques and the balance amount of his share found due will be paid to him by 30th April, 1982. Till date, balance amount of the share of the plaintiff has not been paid. Although, possession of a rented shop which was actually godown in the Gali was handed over to the plaintiff but the plaintiff was constrained to surrender its possession to the landlord same being unsuitable for business purpose. On coming to know that defendant No. 1 has got the lease hold right in respect of the said plot transferred exclusively in his name in collusion with the officials of defendant No. 5, the plaintiff served notices on defendants 1 & 5 challenging the transfer. It is further alleged that after serving legal notice dated 5.8.1982 through Sh. B.L. Monga, Advocate, on defendants 1 to 3, calling upon them to pay 40% share in the leased plot and the building as well as in business, the plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction against them on 16.2.1983 which is pending before Sh. R.N. Jindal, Sub-Judge. Relief of declaration claimed in that suit is to the following effect:

(3.) Defendants 1 to 4 against the terms and conditions of the lease deed and with out the permission of defendant No-5 have rented out the building constructed on the said plot to five tenants and are also collecting rent/commission of Rs. 10,000.00 per month from them. Defendants are also having income from the business of M/s. Calcutta Soap Oil Industries. Total income by way of rent/ commission .and income from business is Rs. 15,000.00 per month wherein the plaintiff has 40% share. Reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit are thus :