A partner can dissolve an at-will partnership through a written notice, which constitutes sufficient action for dissolution, regardless of the firm's registration status.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present second appeal arises from a long-standing dispute within a family partnership. The appellant before this Court, Smt. Moksh Lata, was defendant No.1 in the suit instituted by her brother-in-law - the plaintiff, namely, late Shri Manohar Lal Sood. The litigation revolves around the dissolution of the partnership firm M/s Shankar Dass & Sons, and the consequential rights of the partners over the properties and accounts of that firm.

2. Photocopy of the Trial Court report has been received and perused with the able assistance provided by counsel from both the sides. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3.1 Plaintiff’s Case: According to the plaintiff, the firm, which dealt in van and baggage material, operated from two premises in Hoshiarpur. A formal partnership deed had been executed on 01.04.2002, constituting the plaintiff, defendant No.1 (the present appellant), and defendant No.2 Sunita Devi as equal partners. The firm owned considerable immovable property, including land measuring 6 kanal 14 marla, comprising shops, sheds and courtyards. The plaintiff asserted that due to advancing age, he had entrusted day-to-day management with the appellant, even providing her with some blank signed cheques for business use. However, relations soured in August 2008. The plaintiff alleged that the appellant, along with her son, misused the blank cheques, fabricated transactions, caused their dishonour, and then instituted false complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further alleged that they attempted to manipulate the firm structure, including obtaining VAT registration for a fictitious concern using the firm’s premises.

3.2 Feeling compelled to terminate the business relationship, the plaintiff served a notice on 22.08.2008, intimating that he would not continue the partnership beyond 30.09.2008, and demanding settlement of his share. The appellant, however, did not render accounts despite controlling the financial records.

3.3 With these broad averments, plaintiff filed the suit for claiming the following reliefs:

(i) Declaration to the effect that firm M/s Shankar Dass Sood and Sons, Pahari Gate as well as Bhairvani Road, Hoshiarpur stands dissolved.

(ii) Mandatory injunction by directing defendant No.1-appellant to settle the accounts w.e.f. 01.04.2009.

(iii) Permanent injunction to restrain defendant Moksh Lata and Sunita Devi from changing their nature of the property owned by the firm.

(iv) Separation of the share of the plaintiff in the firm.

4. Stand of Defendant N: 1 : The appellant (defendant N: 1) contested the suit, contending that the firm was actually part of an older joint family business that had been operating for decades, and that several other unregistered firms existed within the family structure. She asserted that the 2002 partnership deed was only a paper arrangement, and that after her husband’s death, it was the plaintiff, who monopolised the business and financial affairs. She objected that the suit was not maintainable because the firm was unregistered under Section 69 of the Partnership Act; that the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties, and that the partnership deed contained an arbitration clause