The court affirmed that suits regarding partnership rights can proceed even if the firm is unregistered and emphasized the requirement of proper evidence to establish claims of profit-sharing.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. The 1^st defendant in O.S.No.385/2006 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, in a suit for setting aside a partnership deed and a declaration of existence of a partnership firm and also the consequential relief in the form of injunction restraining defendants from impairing the rights of the plaintiff over the firm, has come up in the present appeal raising certain intricate questions regarding the applicability of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendants are brothers. The father of the plaintiff and the defendants, named Sri.K.Ramachandra Panicker, died on 8.12.1976. He was a dealer and licensee of a petrol bunk at Vaikom, Valiyakavala junction with No.KL 182 under the name and style ‘M/s. K.R. Panicker and Sons’. On 29.5.1978, a partnership deed was executed between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant, and that being the eldest member of the family, the 1st defendant was managing the affairs of the petrol pump. On 3.3.2004, the plaintiff received a copy of an intimation issued by the BPCL (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited), dated 27.2.2004, directing the partners to furnish licence renewal form. When the plaintiff enquired about it with the defendants, he was informed that the partnership deed of the year 1978 was cancelled and the firm was reconstituted with a fresh partnership deed dated 7.8.1984 and that the plaintiff has no right over the partnership firm, since he has retired from the partnership firm. But, the plaintiff stated that he did not execute or sign any document during the said period, and that he was away and did not know about the new deed and hence, the suit. The plaintiff contended that the partnership deed dated 7.8.1984 is a sham document executed by the defendants, so as to deny any legal right to him, and that the same is not liable to be acted upon and requires to be set aside. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff had to be excluded from the partnership deed of the year 1984 because he was employed in the Indian Railways, and that, going by the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 an employee of the Railways cannot hold an office of profit. Since the reconstituted firm was registered on 7.8.1984 and the original partnership deed was handed over to M/s. BPCL for renewal of the licence, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any benefit out of the first deed. It was further pointed out that a complaint was lodged before the Police Authorities by the plaintiff, complaining that the signature of the plaintiff had been forged, and the said complaint is pending consideration. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A13 documents were produced and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 documents were produced and the 1^st defendant was examined as DW1. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit and held that the entire family members are entitled to get proportionate profit of the firm from 29.05.1978 from the 1^st defendant and that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/3 share, and others are entitled to 2/3 share. Since the plaintiff had not remitted the court fee for the settlement of the accounts, he was given liberty to institute a fresh suit for the settlement of accounts. Aggrieved, the 1^st defendant preferred AS No.191/2011 which was also dismissed by the Addl. District Court-II (Special), Kottayam by judgment dated 1.10.2014 and hence the second appeal.

3. On 6.6.2016, this