Partnership requires clear evidence of agreement to share profits and conduct business; the court found insufficient proof leading to dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT : 

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

Three suits were jointly tried and disposed of by the Sub Court, Thodupuzha through the impugned common judgment. O.S. No.88/2013 was filed by the appellant seeking declaration of right over certain immovable properties, dissolution of partnership and other ancillary reliefs. Defendants 2 and 3 in the said suit instituted O.S. No.99/2014 and O.S. No.98/2014 respectively against the appellant seeking permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the same immovable properties. By the impugned common judgment, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit filed by the appellant and decreed the other suits.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit filed by the appellant (O.S. No.88/2013). The plaintiff contended that he and the defendants had been engaged in real estate business and that in 2005 they formed a partnership firm. There was no written partnership agreement and consequently the firm was not registered. According to the plaintiff, their mode of business was that whenever any of the partners found an immovable property available for sale, the matter would be discussed with the other partners. Upon negotiation with the land owner, if they found the purchase profitable, some of them would enter into an agreement to purchase the property for the partnership firm using funds pooled by the partners. At the time of each such purchase, the partners were free to contribute the sale consideration either equally or in such proportion as mutually agreed. It was also open to any of them not to participate in a particular transaction. After entering into an agreement for sale, the land would be sold at a higher price and the profit would be shared among those partners who had invested in the transaction, in proportion to their investment. If the property could not be sold within the agreement period, the firm itself would purchase the property in the name of one of the partners.

3. The plaintiff further contended that the plaint A, B and C schedule properties were purchased by the firm using funds contributed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, equally. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and the third defendant is the father of the second defendant. According to the plaintiff, he invested Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.19,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- respectively for the purchase of plaint A, B and C schedule properties in the year 2007, totalling Rs.46,00,000/-. Defendants 1 to 3, as a group, also invested an equal amount of Rs.46,00,000/- for the purchase of the said properties. Plaint A and B schedule properties were purchased in the name of the second defendant, while the C schedule property stands in the name of the third defendant. The plaintiff further asserted that he raised his share of the purchase money by availing loans from a bank and also from his children working abroad, besides utilising his own funds.

4. According to the plaintiff, when the relationship between him and defendants 1 to 3 became strained, he decided to dissolve the firm and settle the accounts. At that time, the first defendant caused to issue Ext.A4 lawyer’s notice addressing the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 6 raising untenable claims in respect of plaint D and E schedule properties, which were also allegedly purchased by the firm and later disposed of. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration that plaint A to C schedule properties are joint assets of the partnership consisting of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff also sought dissolution of the partnership and distribution of its a