RAMESH KUMAR Vs. LATA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed against an order dated 8-11-2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 26A/2005 by Second Additional District Judge, Khandwa. M. A. No. 3544/2005 has been filed as against rejection of the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 whereas M. A. No. 3757/2005 has been filed as against rejection of the prayer to appoint the receiver.

(2.) Plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit before the Court below for rendition of accounts and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s. Antique Stores, Bombay Bazar, Khandwa. Plaintiff has come with the case that on 1-9-1971 a partnership firm was constituted, it was duly registered under the provisions of the the Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Initially the partnership was entered between Shivalal, father of the plaintiff and Rishi Kumar, Rishi Kumar was elder brother of the plaintiff Ramesh Kumar. Shivalal died on 14-5-1979. Firm was continued a deed of partnership was executed on 15-5-1979, got registered on 20-6-1979 with the Registrar, Firm and Societies. Atul Kumar, son of Rishi Kumar subsequently desired to become a partner, consequently he was inducted and a fresh partnership deed was executed on 1 -4-1989. Rishi Kumar died on 22-12-2001. On his death his widow Smt. Leela Devi was inducted as partner. Firms financial year commenced on 1st April and ended on 31st March of subsequent year. Plaintiff served a notice dated 20-9-2005 by registered post. The profit for the year 2004-05 was not distributed, share of the plaintiff was not given. As the partnership was at will, he dissolved it by serving the said notice. Newspaper publication was also made in Dainik Bhaskar dated 20-10-2005, however, account of partnership was not rendered, consequently plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) The stand of the defendants /respondents is that partnership can be dissolved by mutual agreement of the partners. One of the partners has no right to dissolve the partnership. Defendants made newspaper publication dated 23-9-2005. As per deed plaintiff had an option of retiring from the partnership business as he was not willing to continue but not to dissolve partnership business, thereafter business is carried out by the subsisting partners. By showing unwillingness to continue, he has retired from business. Plaintiff is not entitled for an injunction in view of the terms and condition of the partnership deed. Subsisting partners have the right to continue the business of partnership.