BHUPENDRA KUMAR Vs. MAKHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2000 passed by Addl. District Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 126/1982 (102/81) Bhupendra Kumar Vs. Makhanlal & Anr, whereby the suit of appellantplaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that appellant filed a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and rendition of accounts stating therein, inter-alia, that a partnership firm in the name & style of M/s. Khubiram Makhanlal was carrying on its business at Sri Ganganagar in building materials, paints etc with its partners Makhanlal & Mohar Singh (father of appellant-plaintiff) but on 11.04.1973 Mohar Singh separated himself from the partnership business and thereafter inducting the plaintiff and defendant No.2 Vijay Kumar, a new partnership firm was created executing a deed of partnership which incorporated the terms and conditions of partnership and fixed their shares in the business etc. It was stated in the plaint that all the partners were working partners and the books of accounts were in possession of the defendants, however, in the year 1980 disputes cropped up between the partners in relation to the accounts of firm and the work of partnership came to standstill. It was also averred in the plaint that the partnership firm purchased Plot No.4 in Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar, in an auction from Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar on lease of 99 years for a consideration of Rs.16,825/- on which construction was made by the partnership firm and the building materials of the firm is still lying therein under lock & key of the defendants, who are selling the goods illegally for their personal gains and davouring the proceeds to which they have no right. It was also stated that in the year 1980 the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 got his name entered in the documents of the plot purchased by the firm showing himself as the proprietor of firm, which is actually the property of the partnership firm and as fractions between the partners reached to a height, they by consent appointed arbitrators for settlement of disputes but the defendants did not cooperate in the matter so the arbitrators could not pass their decision though the plaintiff was ever ready and so would remain in future also and try his best to cooperate the Panchas in the matter. It was further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff asked the defendant time and again to let him know the accounts of the partnership business and to make payment of his share but they did not do so, nor they produced the accounts before Panchas, which make it clear that the defendants want to davour the share of the plaintiff and stated that as the partnership was at will and the plaintiff could at any time dissolve the partnership, the agreement to appoint the Panchas dated 20.01.1981 is a notice for dissolution of the firm. It was the contention of the plaintiff that despite repeated efforts the defendants have not given him the account of the business nor have shown him the same therefore the plaintiff has a right to file suit for dissolution of the firm and rendition of account.

(3.) In the written statement filed by defendants, the partnership between the parties was not denied, however, it was stated that the business was carried in the premises of defendant No.1 and though Mohar Singh had separated from partnership on 11.04.1973 but the business was being looked after by plaintiff, his brother and Mohar Singh and the first book of accounts was maintained by them. They denied the possession of the partnership deed with them and stated that since plaintiff, his brother and father were looking after the business, the original partnership deed must either be with them or with the Income-tax Department. The defendants, though admitted percentage of shares of the partners in the business, as stated in the plaint, but stated that Vijay Kumar was only a financing partner and was not a working partner as he was having his own business of cloth. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff and his brother Mahendra Kumar in the premises of the firm itself started parallel business in the name of their personal firm namely, Gupta Paints from 17.04.1978 and by criminal conspiracy started taking undue benefits transferring the assets of the partnership firm. According to the defendants, the firm had a debt of Rs.53,000 to firm Lokram Vijaykumar and as the plaintiff had taken all the moveable properties in his possession and Lokram was insisting for payment, the building in the name of defendant was sold through two sale deeds on 10.09.1981 for Rs.48,500/- and at that time, no material of the firm was there and only the vacant possession was handed over, where Shiv Shankar, the proprietor of Agrawal Pipe Store, is carrying on his business by taking it on rent.