- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant had filed a suit against the respondents styled by him as a "suit for dissolution of partnership firm and accounts". In the body of the plaint it was claimed by the appellant that the parties had agreed to form a partnership in connection with the manufacture of certain goods. It was the further claim of the appellant that he had in fact invested monies pursuant to the agreement and had taken part in the business of the firm. On the allegation that Respondent 2 had denied that the business was a partnership business, the suit was filed for a declaration that Respondent 1 was a partnership business in which both the appellant and Respondent 2 had equal shares and praying for dissolution of the firm, accounts and payment of the amount as may be found on the taking of such accounts. The suit was contested by the respondents who claimed that there was no partnership as claimed by the appellant, and that Respondent 1 was a sole proprietor concern of Respondent 2. It was also stated that the appellant had merely lent money to the business, which money had been returned to the appellant. Reliance was placed in particular on the minutes of a meeting held between the parties which was subsequently exhibited as Exhibit 95 in which it was recorded in the presence of third parties "we have come to the conclusion that partnership cannot take place between S.B. Kulkarni and M.B. Kulkarni" (being Respondent 2 and the appellant respectively).
(3.) The trial court held that the appellant had been able to establish that there was a partnership business as claimed by him and that he was entitled to sue for dissolution of the business. Accordingly, a decree was passed declaring that Respondent 1 was a partnership business in which both the appellant and Respondent 2 had equal shares and that the firm should be dissolved within a period of two months. A preliminary decree for accounts was also passed.;