R. S. A. No. 215 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 215 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 17, 2011 Vinod Kumar and others .... Appellants Vs. Janak Raj and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. D. K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the caveator-respondent no.1. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants Vinod Kumar etc. have filed the instant second appeal. Suit was filed by Shiv Ram etc. However, plaintiff no.1 (Shiv Ram) and plaintiff no.2 (Banarasi Dass) have since died and are represented by their legal representatives. Plaintiffs no.3 to 6 along with legal representatives of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are the respondents herein. Sant Ram – father of the plaintiffs had taken the disputed site R. S. A. No. 215 of 2011 (O&M) 2 on rent from Municipal Committee and raised a wooden khokha and was doing his business there. Later on, Sant Ram entered into partnership with Chaman Lal (predecessor of defendants) vide partnership deed dated 05.08.1965. Sant Ram and Chaman Lal were partners of equal shares. They were running the business in the disputed property. Later on, wooden khokha was destroyed in fire and pacca shop was raised by Sant Ram being tenant in the disputed site. There was also fresh partnership deed dated 17.07.1971 between Sant Ram and Chaman Lal. Sant Ram died on 03.11.1984. After his death, plaintiffs no.1 to 3, with consent of plaintiffs no.4 to 6, orally agreed with Chaman Lal to continue the partnership. Chaman Lal had been paying half share of profit to the plaintiffs till 31.03.1990. Chaman Lal died in March 1991. Defendants have not rendered accounts since 01.04.1990. The firm stood dissolved with the death of Chaman Lal in March 1991. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed suit for formal dissolution of the partnership firm M/s Sant Ram Chaman Lal and for rendition of accounts thereof w.e.f. 01.04.1990 and also for possession of the disputed shop along with mesne profits thereof. The defendants resisted the suit and denied the plaint averments. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pathankot, vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2002, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed partly by R. S. A. No. 215 of 2011 (O&M) 3 learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.2010 and thereby, plaintiffs' suit has been decreed partly directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the disputed shop to the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Plaintiffs have duly proved the partnership deeds entered into between the plaintiffs' predecessor Sant Ram and defendants' predecessor Chaman Lal. These partnership deeds depict that the disputed shop was in the possession of Sant Ram being tenant of Municipal Committee on the site. Other evidence has also been led in this regard. Admittedly, partnership in question stands dissolved. Consequently, defendants have no right whatsoever to retain possession of the disputed shop. On the other hand, plaintiffs are entitled to restoration of possession of the disputed shop and therefore, their suit has been rightly decreed to this extent by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the partnership firm stood dissolved in the year 1980 during the life time of Sant Ram and the plaintiffs remained silent for 13 years till filing of suit on 15.03.1993. The contention is completely misconceived and irrelevant and R. S. A. No. 215 of 2011 (O&M) 4 is neither here nor there. Learned counsel for the appellants could not refer to any pleading or evidence on record to substantiate his contention that the firm stood dissolved in the year 1980. On the other hand, finding of the lower appellate court is that the firm got dissolved in the year 1984 on account of death of Sant Ram. The suit was filed on 15.03.1993. Consequently, the suit cannot be said to be time barred. Even otherwise, defendants have no right to retain possession of the disputed shop. There is, therefore, no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity in the judgment of the lower appellate court so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. January 17, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE