O.P.JAIN,J. - (1.) THIS first appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.5.1988 passed by the VIth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi by which the appeal was allowed and the order passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi on 21.8.1984 was set aside. The Civil Judge had held that the suit is barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act and had dismissed it on that ground. The Additional District Judge set aside the order and remanded the case for decision on merits.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that there is a shop 27/10-11, Mohalla Katra, Chowk, Varanasi. The shop was owned by Raja of Banaras and it was let out in 1939 to Srichand Gupta who was doing business under the name and style of Srichand Gupta and Sons. Srichand Gupta died in 1942 and left behind him five sons and his widow. The sons of Srichand Gupta continued to do business till 1955 when they fell short of case and in order to meet a decretal debt they entered into a partnership on 13.4.1955 with Madhusudan Das Jain who was their cousin. Madhusudan Das Jain purchased the furniture in the shop for Rs. 12,000/- and entered into a partnership with the sons of Srichand Gupta. The partnership between Madhusudan Das Jain and the sons of Srichand Gupta came to an end on 31.3.1966. On 1.4.1966 another partnership came into existence between Dharam Chand Gupta (son of Srichand Gupta) and two sons of Madhusudan Das Jain. This partnership was dissolved on 15.6.1967. In December, 1967 Pratap Chand, Phool Chand and Dharam Chand, sons of Srichand Gupta, filed a suit against Madhusudan Das Jain on the ground that Madhusadan Das Jain was only a licensee and his licence has been terminated by notice dated 12.2.1966. It was alleged in plaint that Madhusudan Das Jain gave an assurance that he shall vacate the shop and shall remove the furniture but he did not do so and, therefore, the suit for eviction was filed.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that Dharam Chand Gupta was originally impleaded as defendant No. 6 but during the pendency of the suit he was transposed as plaintiff No. 3. The suit was contested by the remaining defendants who controverted the plaint allegation.;