RAMESHBHAI MALJIBHAI PATEL Vs. SWAMI HARIPRASAD GURU KESHAVNANDJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.125 of 1981 by the District Judge, Bharuch, on the 31st December, 1982. The said appeal arose out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in Regular Civil Suit No.147 of 1978 on July 18, 1981.

(2.) The said Regular Civil Suit No.147 of 1978 was preferred by Shri Laxminarayan Mandir Trust through its trustee Swami Hariprasadji Guru Keshavanandji against the present appellants seeking a declaration of dissolution of partnership or partnership firm named as 'Laxminarayan Irrigation Scheme', in partnership with defendants No.1 and 2, with further relief seeking rendition of accounts from inception of the partnership till its dissolution from the defendants along with cost of the suit.

(3.) The defendants, on being served with the summons and notice, filed written statement at Ex.21. The written statement is more or less in the nature of denial and the contention raised in the written statement is that the plaintiff has given a twisted version about the partnership and the relationship. According to the defendants, the defendants wanted to raise loan for the scheme and, for raising loan, certain land was required to be mortgaged. The defendants' land was running short of the extent required to be mortgaged. This was told by the defendants to the deceased Keshavanandji and he, therefore, said that if they agree to provide water to the lands of the trust and undertake to repay the loan, then he is ready to mortgage some land of the temple with the bank. To this proposal by Keshavanandji, the defendants agreed and the funds were raised by mortgaging properties of the temple and the water was provided at concessional rate to the trust. According to the defendants, the entire theory of the trust being a partner is a gross concoction. If that was so, there would have been some document of partnership. According to the defendants, the scheme was named as Laxminarayan Irrigation Scheme not because the trust was a partner but because the defendants were disciples of Laxminarayan temple. The defendants said that the defendants did not have any close relation with Keshavanandji or Amardasji, but this theory is got up only to cover up and support the say of the plaintiff about the oral partnership as there is no document of partnership and, therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiff is not entitled to bring the suit for rendition of accounts and the suit, therefore, may be dismissed.