JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. 

1. This consolidated judgment governs the adjudication of the above-captioned Regular Second Appeals (here-in-after referred to as “RSAs”), each arising from a substantially similar factual and legal matrix. Given the commonality of parties, the coextensive nature of the impugned judgments and decrees, and the consent of learned counsel for joint consideration, these appeals are being disposed of collectively in the interests of judicial economy, uniformity of legal interpretation, and procedural efficiency.

2. At the instance of learned counsel for the parties in both RSAs, the factual matrix has been extracted from the records of both appeals for the purposes of this consolidated order, as it presents the most comprehensive, accurate, and coherent account of the material facts. While the issues in each appeal may differ, the delineated facts are adopted collectively to constitute the representative factual foundation for adjudication, thereby ensuring a consistent and uniform basis for determination.

3. The appellants/defendants in the above-captioned RSAs have preferred these appeals assailing the impugned judgment and decrees rendered by the learned Appellate Courts.

4. The appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Karnal, whereby the findings of the learned Trial Court were affirmed in toto. At the trial level, the learned Sub-Judge I Class, Karnal, by judgment and decree dated 27.02.1985, had decreed the suits filed by the respondents–plaintiffs seeking dissolution of the partnership firms and rendition of accounts. The appellants challenge the concurrent findings of both Courts below as unsustainable in law and vitiated by errors of fact.

5. The brief facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows: Pritam Singh, Amarjit Singh, and Nishan Singh entered into a partnership on 13.07.1965, forming a firm under the name and style of M/s Punjab Tractors and Implements, engaged in the purchase, sale, and repair of tractors. Each partner contributed Rs.10,000 and agreed to share profits and losses equally. Nishan Singh, as the active partner, was authorized to manage the business, operate bank accounts, and draw a monthly salary of Rs.250/-. Subsequently, the partners commenced another business of soft drinks under the name M/s Pritam Singh and Company pursuant to a partnership deed dated 29.03.1970, effective from 01.04.1970, with identical profit-sharing arrangements and managerial authority vested in Nishan Singh, including maintenance of accounts.

5.1. The business of M/s Punjab Tractors and Implements was conducted from leased premises, which were allegedly used for the soft drinks business as well. During the subsistence of the partnership, Nishan Singh purchased the said plot and superstructure in his own name vide registered sale deed dated 03.06.1974. The plaintiffs assert that the property was acquired from partnership funds while litigation regarding the plot was pending, and claim joint ownership by all partners. It is further alleged that Nishan Singh later demolished the existing structure, raised new construction, and transferred the property to Defendants No.3 to 5, transfers which are challenged as fraudulent. The plaintiffs further allege exclusion from management and denial of access to accounts, seeking dissolution of both firms, rendition of accounts, and protection of the disputed property as partnership assets.

6. Upon notice of the suit to the defendants, Defendant No.2, Amarjit Singh, did not contest the suit and, in his written statement, admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 and 3 to 5, however, contested the suit, disputing the plaintiff’s locus standi and asserting that both partnership firms had already stood dissolved. It was pleaded that Pritam Singh had retired from the firms in April 1974 after receiving full and final settlement of his dues. According to the contesting defendants, a new p