1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.847 OF 2009. 1.Mrs.Sujata W/o Manish Seth and others ... Appellants. Versus Mrs.Geeta W/o Parag Chukalkar and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.M.N.Deshmukh, advocate for the appellants. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 07.12.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellants are original plaintiffs. They had filed suit for perpetual injunction. According to them, they together 2 along with the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 formed a partnership firm which was registered under the partnership Act in the name and style as "Moon Drops". The business of the firm was settled to be carried out in the premises of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The premises of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were to be given as their contribution to the business, whereas the finance and other management was to be done by the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 were required to look after business of running a softy icecream parlour and were to receive remuneration of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) p.m. for their such work. Subsequently, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 backed up and started running a beauty parlour. Hence, the injunction suit was filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit and so also the appellate Court did dismiss the appeal. 3. It is argued by learned advocate that substantial questions are involved as enumerated in the appeal memo. It is important to notice that the partners have equal right and 3 liabilities as provided under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The partners may seek settlement of accounts U/s 48 if the firm is dissolved. The firm stands compulsorily dissolved U/s 41(b) by the happening of any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the firm to be carried on or for the partners to carry it on in partnership. The partners are accountable to the firm and to each other. Obviously, all the partners are akin to the position of co-sharers in a property, in so far as the business is concerned. It is well settled that one co-sharer can not seek injunction against another co- sharer. 4. What appears is that the defendants No. 1 and 2 refused to give their premises for use of the icecream parlour. It could be only breach of the agreement. The remedy of the appellants is elsewhere and not by way of injunction suit. Considering the concurrent findings of facts, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal 4 is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa84709