IMPORTANT POINT
The legal principle established is that a partner may retire with the consent of all parties, and unequivocal admissions are necessary for judgment on admissions.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A.12063/2018 (under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff)

1. The application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `CPC') has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking a Judgment and decree, on the basis of unambiguous admissions made by the defendants in the present Suit and also in the documents pertaining to the admitted litigations by the defendant No. 1.

2. To appreciate the contentions of the plaintiff, it would be pertinent to refer to the respective cases of the parties. The plaintiff has filed the Suit for Dissolution of Partnership, Rendition of Accounts and recovery of the amount due and payable after the Rendition of Accounts, Cancellation of Documents, Declaration and Permanent Injunction.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 is the Partnership firm comprising of three partners, namely, the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 and defendant No 3, who all are the brothers and have been trading in the papers and paper products, in the name of defendant No. 1. The share of each of the three partners, was equal to the extent of 33%.

4. The plaintiff has asserted that from the funds of the partnership business, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 purchased the property bearing No. 14-B, Orchid, Shushant Lok, Gurgaon (Haryana), in their personal name and included the name of their mother, Smt. Seema Goel. The defendant No. 1 also owned a flat in Mercantile House, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi, which had been let out by the defendant No. 1 to American Express Bank. The Gurgaon property has been let out by the defendant No. 1, to one M/s Honeywell International.

5. The plaintiff has stated that he was based in Mumbai and was being assured regularly by the defendant No. 3 that his share was being transferred to his capital Account. However, since the year 2001, no amount has been paid to him from the account of the defendant No. 1. The relationship being cordial between the three brothers, he never made any grievance against his brothers.

6. In sometime September 2007, when the plaintiff approached the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to see the Accounts, they evaded it by saying that the account was being finalized. In the interim, some relatives and the mother of the parties intervened and requested them to settle their disputes in respect of the properties, whether owned by the defendant No. 1 Firm or by Sh. O.P. Goel (HUF) and in respect of the estate left by their father. The plaintiff on failing to receive any attention, addressed a letter dated 10.07.2009, requested the defendant Nos. 2 and 3, to allow him to inspect the records but no reply was forthcoming from them.

7. The plaintiff claimed that on a recent enquiry, he came to know that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are not only operating the regular Bank Account of the defendant No. 1 in Standard Chartered Bank, which has been maintained since the inception of the partnership firm but they have also manipulated and transferred the other amounts of the partnership Firm, without the consent, approval and confirmation of the plaintiff. Some fraudulent activities have also been undertaken by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3, to keep the plaintiff away from the partnership business.

8. The plaintiff thus served Notice dated 08.11.2009 upon the defendants, informing them that since a partnership was at Will, he did not want the partnership to continue and sought dissolution of the firm with immediate effect from the date of the receipt of the said Notice. The plaintiff also called upon the defendants to render the accounts of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff thus filed the present Suit for Dissolution of Partnership and Rendition of Accounts.

9. The defendants in their Written Statement took up the defence that during the lifetime of Sh. O.P. Goel, the father of the parties, all the three sons were carrying on the following business under the supervision and control of their father, n