PRIYA S Vs. D RETNAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff. She lost both in the trial court and the first appellate court. Her suit was for declaration and injunction.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 constituted a partnership firm under the name and style M/s Radhakrishnan and Brothers. The firm had an agreement called Distribution Pump Supply Licence Agreement which was dated 2.12.1970 with the Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distributing Company of India Ltd (for short the Burmah Shell). As per the said agreement the Burmah Shell issued licence to the aforesaid firm to run a petroleum retail outlet at Kilimanoor in Thiruvananthapuram district. As per Ext A2 agreement dated 24.2.1972 the management of the retail outlet was entrusted with the father of the plaintiff for six months. The period was later extended up to 24.12.1977 by mutual agreement. The said entrustment was approved by the Burmah Shell. The Burmah Shell was nationalised during 1976-1977 and it was rechristened as the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The same is the third defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 are respectively the territory manager(retail) and the sales officer of the third defendant. Later, the plaintiff's father was inducted as a partner of M/s Radhakrishnan and Brothers. The above are admitted facts.

(3.) The plaintiff contended that defendants 1 and 2 retired from the partnership firm on 25.12.1977 and that thereafter M/s Radhakrishnan and Brothers became a proprietory establishment of the plaintiff's father. It is also contended that the proprietorship became a partnership firm by virtue of Ext A7 partnership deed dated 8.9.2001 executed by and between the plaintiff and her father. According to the plaintiff, she became the sole proprietor of M/s Radhakrishnan and Brothers consequent to the death of her father. It was on that basis the plaintiff brought the suit. The declaration sought by the plaintiff was that she was entitled to continue, claim and inherit all businesses and privileges run or held by M/s Radhakrishnan and Brothers. She sought injunction restraining defendants 3 to 5 from taking any action to take over the business of the petroleum outlet at Kilimanoor from the plaintiff till her claim over the dealership was finally decided by the third defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 were sought to be restrained by injunction from causing any disturbance to the business run by the plaintiff.