KESHO RAM Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's first appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.5.1994 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Dhuri, in Civil Suit No. 335 of 1988, by which the learned Sub Judge decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Manohar Lal for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts, as prayed for.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Manohar Lal, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts of M/s Punjab Foundry and Engineering Works, Dhuri, and claimed accounts with effect from 1.1.1982 till the date of finality of suit and he also prayed that defendants Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Kesho Ram, Charanjit and Mangal Sain, be directed to render accounts as they were managing the affairs of the said firm. The plaintiff also claimed a decree for possession of 1/5th share by way of partition of entire movable and immovable property of the firm in the shape of building and machinery. The plaintiff also claimed 1/5th share being the partner of 20% share in the partnership in the godowns and also in the land measuring 16 Bighas 14 Biswas, fully described in the head note of the plaint itself.

(3.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate written statements and denied that the property was in the name of M/s Punjab Foundry and Engineering Works, Dhuri. They took the plea that Smt. Rukmani Devi widow of Parshotam Dass was the owner and in exclusive possession of the entire property mentioned in head note of the plaint, including godowns, which were in dilapidated condition. Kesho Ram defendant No. 1 purchased the said land, including godowns from Rukmani Devi vide two sale deeds dated 6.9.1983 and 7.9.1983 for valuable consideration. Thereafter Kesho Ram installed rice sheller under the name and style of M/s Charanjit Rice Mills. They constructed their new godowns, constructed the boundary wall and installed the machinery. In this manner spent huge amount after taking loan from the Punjab Financial Corporation and Punjab National Bank. Defendant No. 1 claimed himself to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 denied that the plaintiff had any right or authority to claim share in the landed property. They also pleaded that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties; that it is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction; that the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit; that the suit is beyond limitation. These defendants also took the specific plea that the plaintiff never challenged the sale deeds in favour of defendant No. 1. The alleged partnership in between the different partners cannot affect the rights of defendant No. 1 since he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration from Smt. Rukmani Devi defendant No. 7.