Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.

This second appeal, at the instance of a defendant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 15, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Title Appeal no. 69 of 2010 affirming the judgment and decree passed the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 193 of 2003.

The respondent nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal filed the title suit agaithe sole defendant, being the appellant in this appeal, but, subsequently added some other defendants without claiming any relief against them. The said added defendants are the proforma respondent nos. 3 to 5 in this appeal but any reference to them is not required in this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their array in the trial Court.

In the title suit, the plaintiffs claimed declarations that they are the partners of the partnership firm namely ‘Rishav Builders’ described in schedule “A” to the plaint, (hereinafter referred to as “the partnership firm”) in respect of premises no. 16A, Round Tank Lane, Ramkrishnapur, Howrah, described in schedule “B” to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) and that the resolution of minutes of the partnership firm dated April 07, 2002 in respect of the suit property is binding upon the defendant and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from claiming any share towards the profits of the partnership firm in respect of the suit property.

Both the learned Courts below concurrently decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and declared that they are partners of the partnership firm in respect of the suit property and the resolution and minutes of the said partnership firm in respect of the suit property dated April 07, 2002 that the defendant retired from the business of the partnership firm is binding upon him. A decree was also passed permanently restraining the defendant from claiming any share towards the profits of the said partnership firm in respect of the suit property.

In the plaint, the plaintiffs alleged that in terms of registered deed of partnership dated August 18, 1996 they along with the defendant constituted the partnership firm for carrying on business, inter alia, of construction and promoting properties. The business of the partnership firm commenced on and from April 01, 1996. Each of them has 40% share in the firm and the defendant has 20% share in the firm. The firm purchased the suit property, demolished its existing structure and developed the property by constructing a multistoried building. The project for development of the suit property was a joint venture agreement between the partners of the firm. By a resolution dated May 07, 2002 as recorded in the minutes of the firm, it was resolved between the partners of the firm, that although the joint venture project at the suit property was not yet completed but as on February, 2002, the firm was in profit of Rs. 13,84,031/-, as per the partnership deed the 20% share of the defendant in such profit stood at Rs. 2,76,807/- and the defendant relinquished his 20% share in the firm in respect of the said joint venture project of the suit property, which was accepted by them and with effect from April 07, 2002 the defendant retired from the said joint venture project of the firm in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs further alleged that in order to corroborate the said resolution dated April 07, 2002, the defendant also made a declaration in writing to the effect that he had voluntarily retired from the joint venture project of the suit property. However, in spite of retiring from the joint venture project of the partnership firm in respect of the suit property, the defendant started to illegally claim share from the rental income of the suit property. On the basis of those allegations the plaintiffs claimed the afore- mentioned reliefs, in the suit, against the