Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The plaintiff filed the suit for dissolution of partnership of defendant No. 3, rendition of accounts, partition and mesne profits and damages. Written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. No replication thereto was filed by the plaintiff. Admission/denial of documents is complete. Framing of issues and statement of plaintiff under Order X Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was recorded on 10.05.2011.

2. The plaintiff has filed the present application Under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking amendment of plaint. Mainly the plaintiff wants to add two additional prayers in the proposed plaint on the basis of additional facts stated in the amendment application.

3. Brief facts are that vide perpetual lease deed dated 20.2.1970 an industrial plot of land admeasuring about 572.22 sq yards at plot no. 18/1 Block A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi, was obtained from President of India in the name of M/s Commercial Glazing Works. Plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 & 2 alongwith their father Late Shri Basant Singh signed the lease deed dated 20.2.1970. Shri Basant Singh expired on 1.4.2002. After his death, the partnership between Late Shri Basant Singh, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1came to an end by operation of law.

4. The assets of the business like machinery remained at property No. 18/1,Block No. A, Naraina Industrial Area Phase II, New Delhi. Thereafter on 22.8.2002. Smt Madan Kaur wife of Late Sh. Basant Singh and mother of the plaintiff and defendants passed away. They both died intestate. But, as stated, Late Shri Basant Singh was partner to the extent of 40% share in the partnership. The following are their legal heirs :-

a. Shri Manjeet Singh (Plaintiff)

b. Shri Harbans Singh (Defendant No. 1)

c. Shri Harvinder Singh (Defendant No. 2)

d. Shri Jaspal Singh

e. Shri Rachpal Singh

f. Shri Kuljeet Singh

The above legal heirs became entitled to the 40% share of Late Shri Basant Singh.

5. As per the case of the plaintiff, after discussions in March 2005 it was decided that plaintiff, defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 would become partners of the firm and other legal heirs of Late Shri Basant Singh will execute a relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff, defendant No. 1 & 2. It was also agreed that shares of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 & 2 would be 30%, 30% and 40% respectively.

6. It is alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint that in March 2005, the said firm was reconstituted with plaintiff, defendant Nos. 1 & 2 as partners having 30%, 30% and 40% shares respectively. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 further expressed their desire to convert the property from leasehold to freehold and that further business of the firm be freshly constituted of defendant No. 3 firm thereafter.

7. Procedural steps were initiated in May 2005 to get property No. 18/1, Block A, Naraina Industrial Area mutated. On 10.6.2005 vide letter from the DDA the property got mutated/transferred from leasehold to freehold in the name of defendant No. 3 firm. Hence, the property vests with the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 & 2 they being the partners of defendant No. 3. Vide relinquishment deed dated 17.03.2005 the plaintiff, defendant No. 1, Sh. Jaspal Singh and Mr. Rachpal Singh relinquished their respective 1/6th share out of 40% share of Lt. Sh. Basant Singh in favour of defendant No. 2. Thus, plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 became owners to the extent of 30%, 30% and 40%.

8. It is stated in the plaint that the Conveyance Deed dated 1.6.2007 was executed and it was agreed that since plaintiff stays in Ludhiana, the daily affairs of the business would be looked after by defendant Nos. 1 & 2. For the purpose of tax assessment and income tax return the head office was shifted to Ludhiana.

9. Plaintiff submits that defendants deny that plaintiff was ever a partner of the firm and the firm was never reconstituted. But, the same can be assessed from the affidavit which was sworn during mutation o