1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1288 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1789 OF 1988 Najma widow of Ramzanali Rasekhinejad and others ..Plaintiffs. Vs. Abbas Ali S/o Ali Akbar Safarali Rasekhinejad and others ..Defendants. ... Mr. Sanjay Jain with Ms Sonal i/b Zohair & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr. R.M. Pardiwala with Ms K.R. Deveriwala i/b Mulla & Mulla for the Defendants. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 18th August, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Chamber Summons has been taken out for recasting the issues that were framed by an order dated 4th September, 2000 by a Learned Single Judge of this Court. The suit has been instituted for a declaration that until 15th March, 1988 the original Defendant and Ramzanali – the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs carried on a business in partnership; that the partnership stood dissolved on the death of Ramzan 2 on 15th March, 1988; for a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to one half share in the income, profits, assets and goodwill of the partnership as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased; for a declaration that the tenancy rights exclusively belong to Ramzan and upon his death to the Plaintiffs; for an order of injunction and for accounts. The existence of the partnership has been admitted in paragraph 16 of the written statement. Similarly in sub paragraphs (vi) and (xiv) of paragraph 3 the case of the Defendants is that though the rent receipt was issued in the name of Ramzan, the tenancy rights were always treated as assets of the partnership. 2. By the order of this Court dated 4th September, 2000 as many as 20 issues were framed. Having regard to the nature of the suit and the controversy that now requires to be adjudicated upon, and having regard to the pleadings of the parties, it would be necessary to recast the issues with a view to elucidating the real nature of the dispute between the parties. Both the learned counsel have been heard and the suggestions which have been made at the Bar have been accepted by the Court. 3 Accordingly the issues shall stand recast as follows : 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that upon the death of Ramzan Rasekhinejad on 15th March, 1988 the said partnership firm known as “new Persian Restaurant & Stores” stood dissolved; 2. Whether the Defendants prove that the suit partnership firm known as “New Persian Restaurant & Stores” carried on at Shop No.32 situate at 341- Akhil Bharatiya Bhavan, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 034, stood dissolved on 28th November, 1987 on the basis of the alleged family arrangement entered into and executed by and between late Ramzanali Rasekhinejad and the Original Defendant; 3. Whether the Defendants prove that in view of the alleged family agreement and joint declaration, the said shop premises and the tenancy rights in respect thereof exclusively belongs to the Defendants at least from 26th November, 1987 as contended in para 20 of the written statement; 4. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that upon the death of the said Ramzanali Rasekhinejad, the tenancy in respect of Shop No.32 situate at 341- Akhil Bharatiya Bhavan, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 4 034 stood devolved upon the Plaintiffs as the heirs of the said Ramzanali Rasekhinejad; 5. Whether the Defendants prove that the suit partnership firm known as “New Persian Restaurant & Stores” together with its assets including Shop No.32 situate at 341- Akhil Bharatiya Bhavan, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 034 stood allotted to the Original Defendant on the basis of the alleged family arrangement dated 28th November, 1987 allegedly executed by late Ramzanali Rasekhinejad; 6. Whether the Defendants prove that Shop No.32 situate at 341- Akhil Bharatiya Bhavan, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 034 was treated as the assets of the suit partnership form known as New Persian Restaurant & Stores; 7. Whether the Defendants prove that with the funds of the suit partnership a premises situate at 8-10 Napeansea Road, Ground floor, Tahir Mansion, Mumbai 400 006 was acquired in the name of New King Edward Restaurant; 8. Whether the Plaintiffs have properly valued the reliefs claimed in 5 the suit; If the answer is in the negative then what consequences thereof; 9. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the accounts of the suit partnership firm for the period after the death of the said Ramzan Rasekhinejad that is, 15th March, 1988; 10.What order? The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of. *****