S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff in CS(OS) No. 1441/1990 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 23.11.2012. The suit sought dissolution of the partnership firm Royal Safe Company, rendition of accounts and partition of the immovable properties of the firm.

2. The brief facts are that the first Defendant (now deceased) was plaintiff’s father; the other parties, second to fifth defendants are his brothers, all of whom were partners in business of furniture and decorators, which was carried out under the name of M/s. Royal Safe Company in terms of the partnership deed dated 01.04.1967. While the plaintiff had 20% share in the partnership, Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No.5 had 15%, 20%, 20%, 15% and 10% respectively. The business was admittedly discontinued in September 1979.

3. The plaintiff had contended that despite discontinuance of the business, neither was the partnership firm dissolved, nor were the immovable properties of the firm partitioned. He, therefore filed the suit, the dismissal of which is being challenged, seeking dissolution of the partnership, partition of the immovable properties, and rendition of accounts in respect of the rent received from such immovable properties.

4. All five defendants contested the suit, and asserted, in their written statements (Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5 filed a common written statement, whereas Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 each filed separate written statements), that the firm had been dissolved and its properties had been distributed amongst the partners; and that the arrangement had even been acted upon by the parties. During their testimony in the trial, however, Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 changed their stand and contended that no final distribution of immovable properties had been done; instead, only a temporary working arrangement had been worked out. The change in stand, to the extent contrary to the pleadings, was held to be untenable by the learned Single Judge.

5. The business of the partnership was being carried out from the following immovable properties:

(i) 53, M.M. Road, New Delhi (MMR property)

(ii) G-26, South Extension., Part I, New Delhi (SE property)

(iii) 13/39, Western Extension Area, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Dehli (KB property)

(iv) N-29, Gali No. 4, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi (AP property)

(v) C-114, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi (Naraina property)

Of these, it was found by the learned Single Judge, without any opposition from any of the parties to the suit that the MMR property was owned by Defendant No.1 in his personal capacity, and was not, unlike the other properties, partnership property. After September 1979, when the partnership business discontinued, the plaintiff carried on business under the name of M/s. King Furnishing and Safe Company (South); the first defendant under the style M/s Royal Safe Company (Karol Bagh) and fourth defendant as M/s Royal Safe Company (M.M. Road). Furthermore, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of a specific portion of the AP property, the remaining portion of which is possessed by Defendant No.3; the MMR property was physically partitioned after discontinuance of the partnership business; the ground floor being divided into three portions; while the plaintiff has been in possession of the middle portion of it, carrying out his business from there, the mezzanine and basement floor has been with Defendant No.4. Defendant No.1 was in occupation of the SE property, which was then surrendered to its landlord. Defendant No.5 came in possession of a portion of the KB and Naraina properties.

6. The learned Single Judge found that the properties had been partitioned/divided between the erstwhile partners. To arrive at this conclusion, he relied on the following reasons:

(a) The suit was filed only in 1990; so for 11 years there was no objection, and no explanation was furnished during the trial for the lack of such objection.

(b) The ph