KIRAN ARORA Vs. RAM PRAKASH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, against four defendants an application, (I. A. No. 2431 of 1979) under 0. 23, R. 3, Civil Procedure Code has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, for passing a final decree for Rs. 1,95,000.00 against defendant No. 1.

(2.) The question for decision is whether the compromise between the plaintiffs and some of the defendants is lawful. The relevant facts are as under: Ram Parkash, defendant No. 1 and his two sons Kanwal Kishore (defendant No. 3) and the deceased Chand Kiran Arora entered into partnership on 1st April, 1964 which firm is alleged to have been dissolved by a deed dated 31st March, 1971 and another firm is alleged to have been constituted between defendant No. 1 and his son Chand Kiran Arora vide deed dated 1st April, 1971. Chand Kiran Arora died on 3rd Jan., 1974 and another new firm is alleged to have come into existence on 4th Jan., 1974 in terms of a deed dated 19th March, 1974 between defendant No. l and his daughter defendant No. 2. In this firm minor plaintiff No. 2 is alleged to have been admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm. According to the plaintiffs the balance sheet of the partnership firms as on 31st March, 1974 showed a sum of Rs. 63,365.88 due to Chand Kiran Arora and vide another balance sheet minor plaintiff No. 2 was shown entitled to Rs. 26,119.81. The name of partnership business has been 'Ram Prakash Kanwal Kishore' with its branch styled as 'Prakash Steel Industries' at Loha Mandi, New Delhi. Subsequently the firm is alleged to have acquired considerable immovable and moveable properties, steel quotas, etc. and now the partnership firm carries on business at B-87, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi. Chand Kiran Arora who died on 3rd Jan., l974 left behind plaintiff No 1 his widow, plaintiff No. 2 his minor son, plaintiff No. 3 his minor daughter and defendant No. 4 Smt. Phoolwati, his mother. There is also a property on leasehold plot BF-27, Najafgarh Road Residential Scheme known as Tagore Garden, New Delhi. This plot was initially owned by Chand Kiran Arora and Kanwal Kishore, defendant No. 3. After the death of Chand Kiran, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 being heirs inherited the share of the deceased in the said property. The share of defendant No. 3 in this property was transferred to his wife Mrs. Madhu Manchanda. The names of the plaintiffs, defendant No. 4 and Mrs. Madhu Manchanda are alleged to have been recorded as owners in the records of Delhi Development Authority. After the death of Chand Kiran Arora this house became the subject of a suit for partition filed by Mrs. Madhu Manchanda wife of defendant No. 3. The preliminary decree for partition was passed on 22nd May, 1976 in Suit No. 483 of 1975 in Madhu Manchanda v. Smt. Kiran Arora etc. by Shri S. M. Chopra, Sub-Judge, Delhi. The plaintiffs further allege that defendant No. I with a view to deny their share and rights in the estate left by Chand Kiran Arora, forged a Will dated 26-12-1973 of Chand Kiran. This Will was got attested by defendant No. l from his two daughters including defendant No. 2 and it was produced in proceedings under the Indian Succession Act where the same was held to be false and forged. An appeal filed in this court was dismissed by B. C. Misra, J. who also held the Will to be a forged one. A complaint was filed under Sec. 340 Criminal Procedure Code for prosecution of defendant No. 1 and a complaint has been filed by the Registrar of this court against defendant No. l forging the said Will etc. which is pending. The defendants failed to render accounts and therefore the plaintiffs by this suit claim dissolution and rendition of accounts.

(3.) Defendant No. 3 in his written statement pleads that he continues to be a partner of the firm in suit under the deed dated 1st April, 1964, that there was no dissolution on 31st March 1971, that the alleged dissolution deed dated 31st March, l971s a forged and fabricated one, that defendant No. 2 daughter of defendant No. 1 has no concern with the partnership firm, that defendant No. 1 is avoiding to render accounts; that the three partners, name Chand Kiran Arora, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 agreed to share the profits and losses equally in terms of deed dated 1st April, 1964, that according to term No. 5 thereof death of a partner does not have the effect of dissolving the partnership firm that his father defendant No. l wants to grab the assets of his two sons-partners in the firm, and also the residential house No. BF-27 Tagore Garden, New Delhi, that defendant No. 1 involved the family in litigation by putting a forged Will of Chand Kiran Arora, that his father defendant No. 1 wants to grab his share in the partnership by entering into this unlawful compromise with the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 did not file written statement but filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act tor stay of suit, which is still pending.