SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Bachni Devi widow of Sh.Hukam Singh (since dead) through her legal representatives had brought a suit against S/Sh.Shamsher Singh, Mahabir Singh and Jyoti Prashad craving for grant of a decree for dissolution of partnership between the parties, with respect to M/s Prince Radio and TV Centre, Karnal as well as M/s Prince

(2.) Electronics asking for rendition of accounts found to be due against the defendants to be paid to the plaintiffs, in addition to that praying for issuance of direction to defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the shop in dispute.

(3.) As per the case of the plaintiff Sh.Hukam Chand, husband of Smt.Bachni Devi plaintiff had come in possession of the shop No.C-926 outside Banso Gate, Karnal, as a tenant under Smt.Jaisi Bai wife of Sh.Har Bhagwan on a monthly rent, which stood increased to Rs.10.00 per month as per orders of the Court; that the shop in question was purchased by S/Sh.Ramji Dass and Om Parkash from Smt.Jaisi Bai; that the shop fell to share of Sh.Om Parkash in a family settlement; that Sh.Hukam Chand was carrying on the business of Halwai (Sweets maker) in the shop but since that business was not proving to be profitable, he joined the defendants as a partner and a business was started in the shop under the name and style of M/s Prince Radios and TV Centre w.e.f. 22/3/1990; that as per the terms agreed upon between the partners, the shop was meant for sale and repair of all types of TV sets and radios and if the partners desired to start any other business or to change the name and style of the firm that could be done with the consent of all partners; that the accounts of the firm were maintained in accordance with the trading practice; that the accounts of the firm were to be maintained with the bank to be suggested by any of the partners; that account of the firm would be gone into at the end of each financial year on 31st March for finding out the profit and loss of the firm, which were to be transferred to the capital account of partners; that 10% of loss/ profit was to be suffered/received by Sh.Hukam Chand whereas 30% of loss/profit was to be suffered/received by defendants No.1 to 3 each; that as agreed upon, if a partner intended to retire or get the firm dissolved, he could do so; that the firm could raise an amount as initially decided by the partners and all the partners were liable for all the acts of the firm; that the expenses were to be paid firstly out of the profit and in case of any deficiency, the same was to be borne by the partners in accordance with their shares in the profit of the firm; that in case of dissolution of the firm, the dispute was to be settled by mutual consent and possession of the shop was to be handed over to Sh.Hukam Chand, the husband of the plaintiff; that the business of the firm was carried out only for one year till the death of Sh.Hukam Chand on 3/5/1991; that thereafter plaintiff Smt.Bachni Devi was joined as a partner in the firm and a fresh partnership deed was executed on 4/6/1991, vide which it was agreed by the defendants that plaintiff would become entitled to all the assets and liabilities of the firm as already decided including profit and loss of the business. However, after some time, the defendants excluded the plaintiff from the affairs of the firm and denied her right as a partner in all respects; thereafter the name of the firm had been changed as M/s Prince Electronics without the consent of the plaintiff; that when the plaintiff inquired into the matter, the defendants did not give any response to her; that the plaintiff asked the defendants several times to dissolve the firm, render the account and hand over the possession of the shop to her but in vain, giving rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit in question.