IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Moksh Lata . . . . Appellant Vs.

Manohar Lal Sood thr LRs and Another . . . . Respondents ****

Reserved on: 04.12.2025 Pronounced on: 12.12.2025 Pronounced fully/opera6ve part: Fully ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate and Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

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 ins+tuted by her brother-in-law - the plain+ff, namely, late Shri Manohar Lal Sood. The li+ga+on revolves around the dissolu- +on of the partnership firm M/s Shankar Dass & Sons, and the consequen+al rights of the partners over the proper+es and accounts of that firm.

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

3.1 Plain(cid:6)ff’s Case: According to the plain+ff, 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, cons+tu+ng the plain+ff, 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 plain+ff asserted that due to advancing age, he had entrusted day-to-day man- agement with the appellant, even providing her with some blank signed cheques for business use. However, rela+ons soured in August 2008. The plain+ff alleged that the appellant, along with her son, misused the blank cheques, fabricated transac+ons, caused their dishonour, and then ins+tuted false complaints under Sec+on 138 of the Nego+able Instruments Act. He fur- ther alleged that they a8empted to manipulate the firm structure, including ob-

taining VAT registra+on for a fic++ous concern using the firm’s premises.

3.2 Feeling compelled to terminate the business rela+onship, the plain+ff served a no+ce on 22.08.2008, in+ma+ng that he would not con+nue the partnership beyond 30.09.2008, and demanding se8lement of his share. The appellant, however, did not render accounts despite controlling the finan-

cial records.

3.3 With these broad averments, plain+ff filed the suit for claiming the following reliefs:

(i) Declara+on to the effect that firm M/s Shankar Dass Sood and Sons, Pahari Gate as well as Bhairvani Road, Hoshiarpur stands dissolved. (ii) Mandatory injunc+on by direc+ng defendant No.1-appellant to se8le the accounts w.e.f. 01.04.2009.

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

(iv) Separa+on of the share of the plain+ff in the firm.

4. Stand of Defendant N: 1 : The appellant (defendant N: 1) con- tested the suit, contending that the firm was actually part of an older joint fam- ily business that had been opera+ng for decades, and that several other unre- gistered firms existed within the family structure. She asserted that the 2002 partnership deed was only a paper arrangement, and that aCer her husband’s death, it was the plain+ff, who monopolised the business and financial affairs. She objected that the suit was not maintainable because the firm was unre- gistered under Sec+on 69 of the Partnership Act; that the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary par+es, and that the partnership deed contained an arbitra+on clause that barred the civil court’s jurisdic+on.

5. Stand of Defendant N: 1(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)Defendant No.2, however, supported the plain+ff’s claim and confirmed that the appellant (defendant N: 1) had mis-

used the firm’s documents and obstructed se8lement of accounts.

6