NIRMAL KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Kulwant Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and also for restraining them from alienating 1/4 th share in the suit property. The Courts below accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. The unsuccessful defendants have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he was the founder of the partnership business carried on in the name and style of M/s Rajpura Paper and Board Mills. The partnership deed was duly executed and registered on 18.08.1980. The plaintiff, Harbans Singh, Surinderpal Singh and Gurdev Singh were the partners of the said firm. The land was purchased by separate sale deed in the year 1980. From the very beginning the project suffered heavy losses. Harbans Singh desired his outster from the partnership firm. The entire liabilities and losses incurred qua the share of Harbans Singh were to be shouldered by the plaintiff. A formal deed of partnership amongst the remaining three partners was executed on 24.3.1988. Surinderpal Singh retired vide deed dated 9.4.1990. The surviving partners namely the plaintiff and Gurdev Singh entered into a separate partnership deed dated 20.04.1990. Gurdev Singh also disassociated from the partnership firm relinquishing all his rights in the firm as per the deed dated 15.11.1991. All the accounts of the partnership firm were settled once for all amongst the out going partners. The plaintiff alone was left with huge liability of paying back an amount of Rs. 40 lacs to the Punjab Financial Corporation. The plaintiff who was left as sole proprietor discharged the loan liability to the the tune of Rs. 30 lacs. The out going partners ceased to have any right, title or interest in the firm or its assets. After the demise of Harbans Singh, the defendants being legal heirs were making attempts to interfere with the right, title and interest of the plaintiff firm, hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit contending that all the partners invested in equal shares for the development of the factory. In the profits and losses they were also equally liable,. The defendants never received any profit from the factory run by the firm. The 4 th defendant Amarpreet Singh expressed his desire to join the factory after the death of his father Harbans Singh but the plaintiffs refused to do so. The defendants have 1/4 th share in the land of the factory. With the above contentions, the defendants have sought for dismissal of the suit.