SANJAY KUMAR Vs. SHRI AMAR NATH (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 13.03.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.105 K/99, whereby the learned Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1999, passed by the then Sub Judge, Ist Class(I), Kangra (H.P.) in Civil Suit No.56 of 1996, with the prayer to set aside the same and to restore the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff") maintained a suit for permanent injuction restraining the defendants permanently from damaging, disposing of brick kiln and other assets or destroying or changing the accounts or to deal with the assets and profits of M/s Dayal Brik Kiln Industries situated at Village and Post Office, Nagrota Surian at present Village Jarpal, Post Office, Amlela, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra in any manner till the partnership is legally dissolved and accounts are rendered and paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has averred that the partnership was constituted between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 31.8.1992 in the name and Style of M/s Dayal Brick Kiln Industries (hereinafter to be referred as 'Partnership firm'). According to the partnership between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the plaintiff had 40% share and defendant No.1 was having 60% share in the partnership business. It has been alleged that the partnership deed was registered with the Sub Registrar, Kangra on 31.8.199

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants on the preliminary objections of cause of action and locus standi, limitation valuation, estoppel, jurisdiction. By filing a detailed written statement, the averments made by the plaintiff have been stated to be wrong. It has been alleged that earlier the plaintiff was a partner of M/s Dayal Brick Kiln Industries with defendant. However, the firm was dissolved by the dissolution deed dated 02.5.1995, signed and executed by the plaintiff and other partners. Thereby he had retired and he ceased to have any concern with the partnership business. The business is being carried out by the defendants, who are the sole partners to the exclusion of the plaintiff. It has further been averred that earlier business was carried out by the partners at Nagrota Surian, which was thereafter shifted to Jarpal. However, investment made by the plaintiff as per his share stands disputed. It has been admitted that the truck was purchased by the firm. The averments made qua change of share between the partners from time to time as claimed by the plaintiff, has also been admitted to be correct. The dissolution was stated to be held with the mutual consent of the parties on 01995 and thereafter, dissolution deed was stated to have been prepared on 02.5.1995. It has been alleged that there is no malafide intention in the pareparation of dissolution deed. No threats so far have been advanced to the plaintiff or to damage the assets and account books etc. of the partnership business. However, it has been averred that the business is being carried out by the defendants after the retirement of the plaintiff to his exclusion for which they have every right and threreby it has been averred that the plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit.