KISHANDAS BHAGWANDAS NAGPAL Vs. JETHANAND BHAGWANDAS NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit claiming to be partners of the Defendant No.15/ Partnership Firm, which they claim to be a registered Partnership Firm. They are claiming accounts of the Firm. They also by this suit seek a decree for cancellation of the document executed by Defendants Nos.10 & 11. According to the Plaintiffs, they are partners of the Defendant No.15/ Partnership Firm, by letter dated 19th August, 1999, which was addressed to them by Defendants Nos.1 to 9, in their capacity as partners of the Defendant No.15/ Firm, the Plaintiffs were informed that the partners proposes to dispose of its immovable properties and it has received offers, therefore, suggestions were invited in relation to that offers from the Plaintiffs. According to the Plaintiff, they gave their suggestions by their communication dated 27-1-2000. However, they received a letter dated 17-1-2000 from the Defendant No.1 stating therein that as per mutual consent, the Plaintiffs have retired from the firm on 25th October, 1999 and cheques were sent to the Plaintiffs representing their share in the partnership firm. The Plaintiffs denied that they have retired from the firm. They also returned the cheques. Affording to the Plaintiffs, they continued to be the partners of the Defendant No.15/ firm, therefore, the sale of the assets of the firm by the other Defendants in favour of the Defendants Nos.10 & 11, who are shown to have been admitted to the partnership firm is illegal. According to the Plaintiff, a fraud has been played by the Defendants Nos.10 & 11 and the Defendant No.1 on the Plaintiff for defrauding them in relation to their share in the partnership assets.

(2.) THE Defendants have raised. several preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit. First objection is that the partnership deed dated 1-6-1983 in relation to which the declaration is sought is superseded by subsequent partnership deed, therefore the suit is not maintainable. It is also claimed that because the partnership firm, which came into existence on 14th October, 1983 is not a registered firm, and therefore, in terms of the provisions of Section 69(ii)(a) of the Partnership Act, the suit is not maintainable. The Defendants claim that the partnership firm of which the Plaintiffs were partners was dissolved by the Plaintiffs by their letter in the year 1991 itself. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have ceased to be partners of the Defendant No.1/ firm in the year 1991 and therefore according to the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' prayer for seeking account is barred by limitation.