SATYAJIT MAITY Vs. R S S BRICKS WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER No. 15 dated 11. 5. 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Amta, Howrah in Title Suit No. 118/05 is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows : opposite parties, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and accounts before the learned Trial Court. In it, the plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties as described in the schedule of the plaint originally belonged to Asutosh Maji. On 14. 5. 2002, he transferred a portion of the property in favour of his son, Sri Brojogopal Maji being the defendant no. 3 by way of registered Deed of Gift being No 799 for the year 2002. On 17. 5. 2002, said Ashutosh Maji further transferred his remaining portion of the properties in favour of his two sons, namely, Benimadhav Maji and shyamsundar Maji, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 by way of two separate deeds of Gift in the year 2002. By virtue of such three Deeds of Gift, the defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 became the owners of the properties as described in the schedule of the plaint. They were running bricks manufacturing business under the name and style of Sri Lakshi Brick Field on the properties. But due to shortage of fund, they found it difficult to run the business and decided to lease out the properties. Having come to learn of this, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 approached the said defendant Nos. 3 to 5. On 2nd November, 7004, a lease patra was accordingly executed by the said defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was a lease for a period of 31 years commencing from 1. 11. 2004 to 31. 10. 2005. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 started their partnership business under the name of style of M/s. R. S. S. Brick Works (Brand Deep ). They invested equal amount as capital of the business. A deed of Partnership was executed on 2. 11. 2004. Taking advantage of the intimate relationship between the parties, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 committed breach of terms of the Partnership Deed by misappropriating money of the business and not by rendering its true accounts. Since disputes and differences cropped up, the plaintiffs asked for the accounts.

(3.) ON 15. 10. 2005, the plaintiffs demanded such accounts and share of the profit and loss of the business, but defendant Nos. 1 and 2 refused to comply and further took the stand that the plaintiffs do not have any claim or share in such partnership business and as such, they are not entitled to get any accounts. It was further claimed by the said defendant Nos. 3 to 5 that the lease patra (Deed of Lease) was executed in favour of the said defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5. This compelled the plaintiffs to file the aforesaid suit with a prayer for declaration that they have half share in respect of the partnership business as well as for other reliefs.