MANGAL SAIN 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 1st Class, Dhuri, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff- Manohar Lal for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Manohar Lal son of Kundan Lal (plaintiff) filed a suit for dissolution of partnership firm and for rendition of accounts against the six defendants, namely, Mangal Sain, Naresh Kumar, Partigaya Paul, Sham Lal, Rukmani Devi and Charanjit, and it was averred by him that M/s National Rice Mills, Dhuri, was a partnership firm of the parties to the suit. Previously, defendant No. 1 Mangal Sain was the owner of the land measuring 7 Bighas 5 Biswas and 10 Biswasis situated in Dhuri town. He constructed building, installed machinery in the said land and raised the mill with the name and style of M/s National Rice Mills, Dhuri, defendant No. 1 Mangal Sain also borrowed loan from various financial institutions like Punjab Financial Corporation and State Bank of Patiala. Defendants No. 1 was not in a position to run the mill single handed and was not in a position to repay the loan from his personal resources. Accordingly he entered into partnership with the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 with effect form 1.7.1975. It was agreed that newly constituted firm has taken over all the assets and liabilities. The Share of the plaintiff was agreed to be 20%. Share of defendant No. 1 Mangal Sain was also 20%; of Naresh Kumar defendant No. 2 was 15%; of defendant No. 3 Partigaya Paul was 15%; of defendant No. 4 Sham Lal was 20%; of Smt. Rukmani Devi (Defendant No. 5) was 10%. Partnership deed was also executed between the abovesaid parties on 4.10.1975. Factum of constitution of partnership concern of M/s National Rice Mills, Dhuri, and factum of transfer of land, machinery etc. to the joint holding of the firm was confirmed by way of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 355 and 356, decided on 5.10.1977. The shares of the parties were inadvertently mentioned wrongly in the suits but those were ordered to be corrected by the High Court. Special Leave Petition filed by defendant No. 1 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. Correction was ultimately incorporated in the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Dhuri. The plaintiff alleges that the parties conducted their business upto 30.6.1981. Account were already settled upto the said date. Thereafter Mangal Sain defendant No. 1 started running the mill and did not render accounts to the other Partners. The relations of the partners became strained. Thereafter defendant No. 1 Mangal Sain leased out the mill premises to other parties without the consent of the plaintiff and other partners. Those lessees filed a suit for permanent injunction at the instance of defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff and other partners just to create evidence. The plaintiff further alleges that defendant No. 1 refuse to render the accounts to other partners regarding the lease money of godown and machinery with effect from 1.7.1981. Entire lease amount was retained by defendant No. 1. It was incumbent upon him to render the accounts to the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5. Subsequently, the share of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 has also been purchased by defendant No. 1 Mangal Sain and Charanjit defendant No. 6. In this manner defendants Nos. 1 and 6 have become partners of M/s National Rice Mills, Dhuri, to the extent of 80% and the plaintiffs remains partner to the extent of 20%. The plaintiff is not interested to continue the partnership firm jointly with defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 6. He called upon defendant No. 1 as well as defendant No. 6 to give possession of the specific share of immovable property by way of partition and also to render the accounts with effect from 1.7.1981 by accounting for the amount of the lease money and other profits earned by the firm, but to no effect. Hence the suit.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and admitted that he purchased land measuring 7.Bighas, 5 Biswas and 10 Biswasis by two sale deeds dated 1.1.1975 and 29.7.1974. He also admitted that he obtained loans from various agencies, such as Punjab Financial Corporation and State Bank of Patiala, and installed a rice seller. He admitted that he was the sole proprietor of this firm. He pleaded that originally he was the sole owner of M/s Bharat Electrical Store, having licence No. 4753, Central Sales Tax No. 2422, which was transferred to M/s National Rice Mills, Dhuri, only for the limited purpose of running of sheller. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were joined as partners only for business funning purpose in order to run the mill. It was denied that ownership rights in the land, building, machinery were transferred to the partnership firm. It was pleaded that electric connection, foodgrain licence, milling licence were obtained by defendant No. 1 and it remanded his sole property. It was admitted that partnership deed was executed only for running the business. It was denied that the plaintiff or defendants Nos. 2 to 5 paid any amount to become co-owners in the land, building and machinery etc. of M/s National Rice Mills, Dhuri. The passing of the judgment and decree in the two civil suits was admitted and it was pleaded that the said decrees were passed only for declaration of existing rights of the parties in the firm and not qua fixed assets which were in the name of defendant No. 1. The said decrees were obtained against defendant No. 1 by way of fraud and misrepresentation and on account of the illiteracy of defendant No. 1. The rights in the immovable property could not be transferred by suffering a consent decree. Rather those could be transferred by way of registers sale deed. Defendant No. 1 admitted that the lessees filed suit for permanent injunction against the present plaintiff-ManoharLal and others, but denied that the said suit was filed at his instance. This defendant also denied any investment of the plaintiff towards the land, machinery or building of M/s National Rice Mills, Dhuri, and pleaded that he took over the mill in the year 1981 as sole owner and was fully competent to lease it out. Since the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were not partners in the land, machinery or building, so they are not entitled to any rendition of accounts. Defendants No. 1 also took an additional plea that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation; that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of courtfee and jurisdiction; and that it is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action.