JUDGMENT
S. Mukerjee, J.
1. The relief claimed in this suit relates to dissolution of partnership under deed dated 13.12.1996, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction.
2. The property in question is land measuring 30 Bhigas and 12 Biswas forming part of various Khasra Nos. 49-15, (4-15), 11(5-5), 12(5-9), 13(5-11), 49/8 (2-8), 9(2-8), 10(10-8), 6(2-8) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Najafgarh, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”).
3. It was contended by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant No. 3 Along with his sons Shri Laxmi Narain, Hari Prakash, Chattar Singh, Dharamvir Singh, were the owner of the suit land.
4. It was further contended that the defendant No. 1 and 2, had approached the plaintiff and had represented that they had entered into agreement to sell with the defendant No. 3 and his sons, in regard to the aforesaid land for purchase of the same for a total amount of Rs. 1.11 crores (Rupees one Crores and Eleven Lakhs only).
5. It was further represented that an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) stood paid by them to the Vendors (Defendant No. 3), and the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000 – (Rupees one crore only) was to be paid at the time of the execution and registration of the sale documents.
6. A copy of the sale agreement dated 5.11.96 in between the defendants No. 1 and 2 on the one hand and the defendant No. 3 and his sons on the other hand, was also shown and handed over to the plaintiff herein.
7. The defendants No. 1 and 2 had represented to the plaintiff that they wanted to develop a “Mini – Farm Group” upon the said land,and to further sell the same in the market. It was further represented by the defendants No. 1 and 2, that they had already taken approval and consent of the defendant no. 3 and the other vendors, for booking the farm houses and to receive the advance money from the prospective purchasers. The money so received there from was to be first used for payment of the purchase price of the land.
8. It was submitted by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff, relying upon the said assurances and representations of the defendants No. 1 and 2, had agreed to enter into a partnership with them. The negotiations were settled in between the parties in the month of December, 1996, and were finalised and reduced in writing vide the partnership deed dated 13.12.96 with the object to carry on the business of selling the suit land in parts at the rate to be fixed by the plaintiff.
9. It is averred that as per agreement between parties was that the money so received would be used for the payment of purchase price, and the excess if any, would be retained by the plaintiff. It was further stated that it had been agreed that both the parties would have a right to make bookings for the sale of the land to the extent of half share each. However the sale was to be effected at the rates determined and fixed by the plaintiff, and all the sale proceeds, whether on the booking made by the plaintiff or on the booking made by the defendants No. 1 and 2 were to be first utilised for payments to be made towards the purchase price.
10. It is further averred that it was also agreed between the parties that the plaintiff may purchase the share of the land of the defendants. The plaintiff could purchase the share of the defendants by paying the amount at the rate of Rs. 21,10,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs and Ten Thous and only) per Killa.
11. It is plaintiff’s case that it was further agreed between the parties that the plaintiff was to pay at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq.yard as profits to the defendants out of the sale of the plots by either party, till the time the plaintiffs would acquire the share of the defendants, if so desired.
12. The parties it is claimed had also agreed to share equally the charges for development and laying of sewerage and water and for making roads. In furtherance of the aforesaid agreement, the plaintiff had also paid a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs (Rupees Eight lakhs only) to the defendants No. 1 and 2.
13. It was contended that the parties started working upon the said project, and engaged the services of one M/s. Mohinder Malhotra Architect, who had carved out a lay-out plan of “Mini Farm Houses”, for their sale. The parties it is submitted, had also started making roads upon the said land to give an effect to the said lay out plan. The services of a Road Contractor one Mr. Tuhi Ram were also engaged in that behalf.
14. The construction work started at site somewhere in the month of January, 96 and continued for about 2 to 3 months.
15. IT was also contended by the Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff that thereafter the intentions of the defendants allegedly became dishonest.
16. The plaintiff claims he was shocked to receive a legal notice dated 21.06.97 from the defendants No. 1 and 2, wherein it was contended that the plaintiff had failed to make payment of Rs. 21.10 lakhs (Rupees Twenty One Lakh and Ten thousand only) to them, and that hence the agreement dated 13.12.96 allegedly stood cancelled.
17. The tenor of the legal notice according to plaintiff showed that the defendants No. 1 and 2 had been treating the partnership deed dated 13.12.96, as an agreement to sell for the sale and purchase of the suit land.
18. The said legal notice dated 21.06.97 was duly replied by the plaintiff vide his reply dated 30.06.97 wherein the plaintiff claims he clarified his stand to the defendants in terms of the Partnership deed.
19. The plaintiff were allegedly told by the defendants No. 1 and 2 that some disputes had arisen in between them and the defendant No. 3 and other vendors.
20. As represented, the said disputes were also referred to the Revenue Court of the concerned S.D.M. at Najafgarh, Delhi.
21. However, the plaintiff claims he was not kept apprised about the details and particulars of such disputes, nor was plaintiff supplied with the documents in that regard. Later on enquiry, it was allegedly revealed that the said proceedings were before the Revenue Courts pertain to the vesting of the land in Gaon Sabha under the Delhi Reforms Act under the alleged ground of change of user. Thereafter the parties allegedly negotiated to settle their issues which failed.
22. The plaintiff claims that when he visited the property on November 6, 1997, he found that some labourers were working upon the suit land. On enquiry, it was revealed that the defendants No. 1 and 2, in connivance with the defendants No. 3 were allegedly trying to sell the land in question and make some profits behind the back of the plaintiff.
23. It was submitted by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that in view of the facts above, it became difficult for the parties to work together and/or to carry on the partnership business under the partnership deed dated 13.12.96 mutually and/or in association with each other, and hence this suit for dissolution of the partnership business under the said partnership deed came to be filed.
24. The defendants were served and had ample opportunities to appear in this matter before this Court. The defendants were proceeded exparte vide order dated 15.4.98 under the preliminary decrees in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant which was passed vide order dated 2.8.2000.
25. Though defendant No. 3 has filed his written statement, but his name was later on deleted from the array of parties, vide order dated 2.8.2000. The arguments were heard and the judgment was reserved vide order dated 9.8.2002. I am satisfied that the plaintiff had entered into partnership with defendants No. 1 & 2 vide partnership deed dated 13.12.96 which has been duly exhibited as Exh. PW1/A.
26. It is also clear from the terms of the partnership deed as per unrebutted record that same was formed only with the object to carry on the business of selling the land, in parts, at the rates to be fixed by the plaintiff. I am also satisfied that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs to defendant No. 1 & 2 vide receipt dated 13.12.96 which has been duly exhibited as Exh. PW1/B.
27. It is also apparent from the copy of the statement of accounts which is Annexure A to the synopsis on behalf of the plaintiff, that the parties had designed a lay-out plan of “Mini Farm Houses” to be carved out on the land in question and to that effect had hired the services of M/s. Mohinder Malhotra Architects.
28. It is further clear from unrebutted stand of plaintiff that the plaintiff had hired the services of a road-contractor, one Mr. Tuni Ram on whom he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,42,000/-. The plaintiff had made the above payment in between 16.1.97 and 25.10.97 through bank cheques, receipt for which are exhibited as Exh. PW1/C to Exh. PW1/G. It was also stated by the plaintiff that a sum of Rs. 1,58,000 was also given to Shri Tuni Ram on various dates in cash, receipts for which were not available. The plaintiff has also discharged the onus of establishing that the above contentions and submissions of the plaintiff, have gone unrebutted. Since the defendants, being ex-parte did not rebut the same.
29. In view of the above, I pass a decree of dissolution of partnership in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants dissolving the partnership between the parties hereto, thereby declaring that the partnership business under the partnership deed dated 13.12.96 as executed between the parties, stands dissolved and holding that both the parties have got equal share in the assets of the said partnership business.
30. I also pass a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for rendition of accounts thereby directing the defendants to render the true and correct account in regard to the and under question pertaining to the sales made and the monies received by them with the expenses incurred thereto. For this purpose, I appoint Shri Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate of this Court Chamber No. 430-31, Delhi High Court, New Delhi as the Local Commissioner to look into the accounts of the partnership. His fee is fixed at Rs. 10,000/- tentatively. The Local Commissioner will submit his report within 6 months from the date of this order.
31. List this matter before the Joint Registrar on 15.5.2002 to avail the report of Local Commissioner.
32. Ordered accordingly.