DEEP NARAYAN SINGH Vs. SARJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 26th July, 1994 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1299 of 1985 for partition. The suit was decreed against which the defendants have come up in appeal. The suit related to a business, which was claimed by the plaintiff to be a joint business. The plaintiff's case, inter alia, was that the origin of the business was a medicine shop carried on by Pujan Singh, since deceased, step-brother of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the present suit, through the first wife of their father. After the death of said Pujan Singh, the three step-brothers inherited the said business and the tenancy right. The plaintiffs and the appellant Ram Narayan Singh became seized and possessed of the said business after the death of the said Pujan Singh. But through cunning maneuver Ram Narayan managed to run the business solely. However, the plaintiffs had still access in the shop where motorcycle is parked by the son of plaintiff No.1. That the said Ram Narayan had brought some litigations against the plaintiffs even at the cost of jeopardising the tenancy right of the shop room. After the death of Ram Narayan Singh, the defendants No.1 to 5 are managing and controlling the business. Neither Ram Narayan Singh rendered accounts during his lifetime nor the defendants Nos.1 to 5 had rendered accounts after the death of Ram Narayan.

(2.) The learned trial Judge had found that the business was the joint business on the basis that it was inherited by the plaintiffs and the said Ram Narayan. The appellants, however, assailed the said finding on various grounds on merit to the extent that there was no material proof that the plaintiffs had joined in the business. According to the appellants, Ram Narayan was carrying on business with Pujan Singh and after the death of Pujan Singh he carried on the business all alone. Though, the appellants did not question the inheritance of the property or succession to the estate of Pujan Singh by the plaintiffs, yet he denied that the plaintiffs had any share or interest in the business.

(3.) At the hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents had stressed that the right is being claimed in the property through inheritance. He had also pointed out from various documents that the jointness was admitted by Ram Narayan, since deceased, and that there are materials to show that the business was carried on jointly.