Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case concerns a dispute over the continuation and legal status of a partnership firm named "Reagan Wines," which was initially registered with the involvement of the plaintiff's father, who was a partner (!) (!) .

2. The partnership deed stipulated that upon the death of a partner, their legal heirs could become partners under the same terms, but there was no evidence of reconstitution or formal re-entry of the heirs into the partnership (!) (!) .

3. The license for the liquor shop was issued solely in the name of the deceased partner’s father, and there was no record of the license being transferred or obtained in the name of the partnership after his death, rendering the continuation of the business in the firm's name illegal (!) (!) (!) .

4. The plaintiff, who is the son of the deceased partner, contended that he was entitled to run the business and seek an injunction based on the partnership deed and the license held in his father's name. However, the courts found that the partnership was not properly reconstituted after the death, and the business was not legally carried on as a partnership (!) (!) (!) .

5. The courts below dismissed the suit for injunction, reasoning that the partnership had effectively dissolved upon the death of the partner and that the legal heirs had not taken steps to re-enter the partnership or to be recognized as partners (!) (!) .

6. The appellant’s argument that the suit was maintainable on the basis of the provisions related to the rights of legal heirs and the continuation of profits was rejected, as the legal formalities for reconstitution were not fulfilled, and the business was being run without proper legal authority (!) (!) (!) .

7. The courts emphasized that dealing in liquor without proper license in the name of the partnership or with the consent of licensing authorities was illegal, and thus, the continuation of the business under the partnership was unlawful (!) (!) (!) .

8. The courts also noted that on the death of a partner in a firm with only two partners, the firm is deemed to be dissolved unless there is a valid agreement to continue, and the legal heirs do not automatically become partners unless they formally reconstitute the firm (!) (!) (!) .

9. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld, confirming that the suit for injunction was not maintainable given the circumstances, and that the legal heirs’ rights were limited to claims for profits or settlement rather than ongoing partnership rights (!) (!) .

10. The court clarified that amendments to the pleadings or prayers, such as deleting references to the firm or changing the business location, were not permitted at the late stage of proceedings, especially when the suit was filed in a personal capacity and the partnership was not legally reconstituted (!) (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal findings revolve around the invalidity of continuing the partnership business without proper reconstitution after the death of a partner, the illegality of operating a liquor business without appropriate licensing in the partnership's name, and the limited rights of legal heirs in such scenarios. The courts’ decisions affirm that the business was not legally sustained as a partnership post the partner’s demise, leading to the dismissal of the suit and the appeal.