Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—These two second appeals arises out of Original Suit No. 166 of 1986, Ram Kishan v. Om Prakash, real brothers, for specific performance of agreement dated 28-3-1985, and Original Suit No. 409 of 1986, Om Prakash v. Ram Kishan, for arrears of rent and ejectment. The trial Court consolidated both the suits and by a common judgment and order dated 30-3-1989, O.S. No. 166 of 1986 was dismissed for relief of specific performance of contract. It was decreed for alternative relief of Rs. 10,000 with cost. The trial Court decreed O.S. No. 409 of 1986 for arrears of rent at Rs. 500 per month w.e.f. 11-7-1986 and for eviction. The trial Court declared that the firm shall stand dissolved w.e.f. 11-7-1986 and issued a Commission to prepare the accounts of the assets and liabilities of the firm. The defendant-Ram Kishan was asked to submit the account within two months with liberty to Om Prakash to issue a commission on his own expenses. The suit was directed to be pending till the preparation of final decree.

2. Ram Kishan filed First Appeal No. 328 of 1989 against the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1989 in O.S. No. 166 of 1986 and Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1989 against the judgment and decree of the same date in O.S. No. 409 of 1986. The appellate Court by its judgment dated 15-12-2005 allowed the First Appeal No. 328 of 1989 and decreed O.S. No. 166 of 1986 for specific performance of agreement dated 28-3-1985 directing Om Prakash to execute the sale-deed on receipt of Rs. 35,000 from Ram Kishan, failing which the sale-deed was to be executed through Court. The appellate Court partly allowed Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1989 and the decree for arrears of rent and eviction was set aside. However, the decree for accounting of the partnership firm was maintained with direction to Ram Kishan to produce all the accounts of the firm for the period 12-12-1976 to 10-7-1986 within one month.

3. Brief facts giving rise to these two second appeals are, that Om Prakash had purchased the disputed shop by sale-deed dated 9-7-1976. He entered into an agreement to sell the shop to real brother, the defendant Ram Kishan for Rs. 45,000 by an agreement dated 28-3-1985 and received Rs. 10,000 in advance. The agreement was registered. According to the terms of this agreement the sale-deed was to be executed before 27-3-1986. Om Prakash alleged that he is in possession of the shop in which he is running kirana business. In his suit Om Prakash alleged that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and is still ready and willing for the same and requested Ram Kishan to execute the sale-deed. Ram Kishan tried to avoid the execution of the sale-deed, on which a notice dated 24-2-1986 was issued to him, which was received by him on 27-2-1986, but that he did not reach to the office of Sub-Registrar, Anoop Sahar on 29-3-1986.

4. Ram Kishan admitted that Om Prakash is the owner of the shop vide sale-deed dated 9-7-1976 and had constructed a two storied building in November and December, 1976. He, however, denied that he entered into any agreement and accepted Rs. 10,000 towards part sale consideration. In the written statement he stated that at the time of purchase the shop was in dilapidated condition. It was purchased for Rs. 24,000. He got the old constructions demolished and constructed a shop with three portions and staircase and also constructed first floor. The value of the shop reconstructed for doing business is about 2-1/2 lacs. At the time of construction of shop his children were minor and as such he started business in the shop in partnership with his real brother Ram Kishan. It was mutually agreed that rent of the shop will be Rs. 150 per month and since thereafter the plaintiff is in possession of the shop alongwith defendant and they were doing business, which was started with Rs. 5000 with partnership of 50% each. The partnership was registered in Sales Tax Department on 12-12-1976. Om Prakash had given s