1. This second appeal is preferred by original Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Special Civil Suit No.21 of 1982 decided on 4.11.1987, which judgment and decree is further confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 533 of 1987 decided on 16.12.1988.

2. Present Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the original plaintiffs. They filed above referred suit for declaration that the partnership firm in the name and style "H.B. Patani & Company" had been dissolved and for settlement of accounts with interest on amount due. The suit was also for perpetual injunction in respect of municipal house No.626 situate at Shrirampur and for appointment of Receiver. The Trial Court decreed the suit declaring that the partnership had been dissolved on 20.1.1980 and the share of the plaintiffs in partnership firm was 1/2 and that of present appellantsdefendants Nos. 1 to 5 was 1/2. The Court also directed appointment of Advocate Shri A.S.Pingale as Receiver of the partnership estate and effects and for taking accounts and do all other acts as required to be done. However, the trial court did not grant perpetual injunction as prayed.

3. In brief, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed above referred special civil suit No.21 of 1982 alleging that appellant No. 1 Hukumchand and deceased Premraj Kale had formed partnership firm by name "H.B.Patani and Company" and only they two were the partners therein. Premraj Kale died on 14.12.1980. He had executed a Will on 1.11.1980 whereby he appointed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2) as executors and trustees. It is further stated that as per law, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were the legal heirs of deceased Premraj Kale. However,Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 (who are Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the present appeal), being the daughters of deceased Premraj, were added as formal parties to the suit. The partnership was for dealing in kerosene and crude oil. Premchand Kale had 1/2 share and appellant Nos. 1 to 5 who formed joint family had 1/2 share in the partnership. The partnership was at will and therefore partner had a right to terminate partnership with three months notice. Appellant No.1 Hukumchand had joined the partnership as Karta of the Joint Undivided Hindu Family ("HUF"for short) of appellant Nos.1 to 5. 04. By notice dated 26.10.1979, Premraj Kale terminated the partnership. In spite of that accounts were not settled and false reply was given by appellant No.1 Hukumchand on 29.1.1980. In the circumstances suit was filed for reliefs as aforestated. It is also stated that due to death of Premraj Kale on 14.12.1980 also, the partnership had come to an end. In paragraphs 2 and 3 it is also stated that partnership firm was doing its business from Municipal House No. 626 owned by Premchand and after his death by the plaintiffsrespondents. It is also said that after dissolution of partnership firm, the defendantsappellants have no right to do business in the property of the plaintiffs and so injunction was prayed for.

5. Appellant No.1 Hukumchand filed written statement on behalf of all defendants at Exh.55. According to written statement, appellant No.1 Hukumchand was representing joint family consisting of appellants and they have the right to continue the business of the partnership firm even after notice by Premchand and also after his death and, therefore, it cannot be said that the partnership stood dissolved. Therefore, according to the defendantsappellants there cannot be decree for dissolution. Moreover, right to file suit is also challenged on the ground that necessary parties were not added to the suit. It is stated that (1) M/s Shanlal Premraj Kale, Kopargaon (2) M/s Dipchand Premraj Kale at Kopargaon and (3) Smt. Urmila Vijaykumar Kale though were the necessary parties to the suit, were not made partie