FAZLE MUNIM,CJ. - (1.)This appeal arises from a judgment of a Bench of the High Court Division at Jessore passed in First Appeal No. 6 of 1980 on 15 March, 1983.
(2.)Appellant who is the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 62 of 1973 for declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit property as well as the cinema shall along with its structures and business. Averments made in the plaint are as follows:
(a) The appellant with proforma-respondents 3 and 4 started a firm at Chuadanga in the name of Mahabir Cinema Company, each having one-third share, mainly to deal in showing of films and cinematograph;

(b) With the above purpose the firm acquired landed properties described in the schedule of the plaint for starting a cinema hall which was proposed to be named "Rupchhaya Cinema Hall" which was to be an associated firm of Mahabir Cinema Company. The landed properties were acquired in the name of Hajarilal, Manager of Mahabir Cinema Company, and Jatindra Lai Biswas, an employee of Mahabir Cinema Company.

(c) The cinema hall was constructed with the money of the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 and respondent 1 was taken in as working partner of Rupchhaya Cinema Hall and respondent 1 had no share in Mahabir Cinema Company or its properties.

(d) Taking advantage of temporary absence of the appellant, respondent 1 managed to create some false, forged and fabricated documents to deprive the appellant of his rights in suit properties and to usurp the same. Respondent 1 has only four annas share in the business of Rupchhaya Cinema Hall and has no interest in the suit properties.

(e) Appellant never sold his interest to anyone. By creating false documents respondent 1 in collusion with local influential persons is trying to dispossess the appellant and is not furnishing any accounts of the cinema business and of the income of other proper lies of Mahabir Cinema Company to the appellant since 28-8-73, and the appellant, therefore, filed the suit on 14-9-73.

He prayed, among others, for the following relief:

"(a) That the plaintiff's 4 annas title in the lands and structure as described below and in the cinema business be declared and the defendant be directed to furnish upto-date account of the cinema business since 28-8-1973."

(3.)Respondents No. 1 and predecessor of respondent No. 2 denied the material allegations in the plaint, it was asserted by them that whatever interest the appellant had in the partnership business was transferred by him to respondent Nos. 1 on 2 October 1961. Thereafter respondent No. 1 entered into new partnership with the predecessor of respondent No 2. Though the partnership was not registered, no specific objection was raised in the written statement that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 69 of the Partnership Act. Such objection, when taken by respondent No. 1 after the evidence was closed and in course of the argument, was over-ruled by the trial Court. Findings of the trial Court were that the suit properties were acquired by the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the Mahabir Cinema Company of which they were partners; respondent No. 1 interpolated the deed of partnership dated 26-4-82 in order to prove his claim; respondent No. 1 created false document and the appellant did not transfer his interest in the firm in favour of respondent No. 1; and the appellant had existing interest in the suit properties including the Cinama hall and Cinama business. In First Appeal No. 6 of 1980 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while challenging the finding in the trial court's judgment raised the bar of section 69 of the Partnership Act.