LAWS(KER)-2014-10-286

SYHARA Vs. MUHAMMED

Decided On October 31, 2014
Syhara Appellant
V/S
MUHAMMED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R .F.A. No. 529 of 2006 is by the plaintiff and R.F.A. No. 29 of 2007 is by the legal representatives of the defendant in O.S. No. 30 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri.

(2.) THE suit, O.S. No. 30 of 1998 was one instituted for a declaration that the partnership by name and style "Blue Metal" stood dissolved with effect from 26.12.1997, for account of the profits derived from the business until its dissolution, partition of the assets of the firm and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from entering the plaint schedule premises and for other incidental reliefs.

(3.) ONE Vayalil Mohammed Haji took on lease from the plaintiff 79 cents from out of the plaint schedule property for the purpose of establishing a metal crusher unit. Ext. B1 dated 28.8.1992 is the lease deed. It stipulates a term of 25 years and the monthly rent payable by the lessee is Rs. 1,000/ -. After establishing the metal crusher unit in the plaint schedule property, on 5.10.1996, Vayalil Mohammed Haji entered into Ext. A2 partnership with the plaintiff, by name and style "Blue Metal." Vayalil Mohammed Haji retired from the partnership on 22.11.1996, as per Ext. A3 deed, after transferring his rights in the partnership to the defendant. Thereupon, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into Ext. A4 partnership dated 22.11.1996. The defendant paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - to Vayalil Mohammed Haji. A security was also given to Vayalil Mohammed Haji by the defendant for the loan availed by him from the State Bank of Travancore to be repaid by the partnership. On 24.12.1997, the plaintiff issued Ext. A7 notice of dissolution of the partnership to the defendant. Notice proceeded on the footing that the partnership was one at will. The defendant replied Ext. A7 by Ext. A8 dated 3.1.1998, taking the stand that the partnership was not one at will and it could not be dissolved. It is thereupon, the suit was filed on the basis that the partnership was one at will.