THAKOR KANSINGH CHATURSING Vs. BHARWAD BHAGWAN RAIYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are the original defendants, questioned the legality and validity of the judgment and decree, granting perpetual injunction in Special Jurisdiction Civil Suit No. 7 of 1969, passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad, on 28/02/1977, in favour of the respondents, who are the original plaintiffs. For the convenience and brevity sake, they are, hereinafter, addressed as they were arranged in the Trial Court.The Plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for dissolution of partnership, accounts and perpetual injunction against the defendants, in respect of 18 pareels of lands, bearing different survey numbers, totally admeasuring approximately an area of 70 acres, and situated in Vatva village of Daskroi taluka, in Ahmedabad, which are, hereinafter, referred to as suit lands.

(2.) The Plaintiffs, inter alia, contended that the suit lands originally belonged to one Aditram Narsidas and others and, original defendant, Kansing, was cultivating the suit lands, as a tenant since before 1956, with one Titaram Mathursing and one Mohanji. After those persons left the suit land, the original defendant- tenant, took the plaintiffs as joint tenants for cultivation of the suit land, in the year 1956, as the original defendant tenant was not in a position to cultivate personally. It was further contended by the plaintiffs that, they were taken as joint tenants by the original defendant-tenant with consent and connivance of the owner (landlord) of the suit land. The original defendant-tenant gave general power of attorney to the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 to work and manage, and to do all acts in respect of the suit land, as per the plaintiff's contention.

(3.) The plaintiffs further pleaded that a regular partnership deed was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant-tenant on stamp paper on 1.3.1960, which was, actually, formed on 1/01/1960. According to the further case of the plaintiffs, the partnership was constituted for cultivation and each partner was entitled to 25 per cent share in the profit. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant was giving co-operation to the plaintiffs until the middle of 1968 and, thereafter, he was instigated by other persons to drive away the plaintiffs from the suit lands. Therefore, he gave notice to the plaintiffs, at the instigation of one Bhimji Dungarji, who had filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 277 of 1967, against both the parties. As alleged by the plaintiffs, the said suit came to dismissed and the injunction was given against Bhimji. As, according to the plaintiffs, original defendant threatened to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs apprehended that, they would be excluded from the management and the partnership business of cultivation, they instituted the above suit.