JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff Muhon Singh in Suit No. 2 of 1951 of the District Judges Court has brought this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the above said Court by which his suit was dismissed with costs. 2. Briefly the plaintiffs case is that he is one of the partners with the defendants in a workshop known as "M.M. Workshop" situated in Maxwell Bazar measuring about 90x140 bearing revenue and Municipal tax whose settlement was duly made by the authorities in favour of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff states that about the end of February 1949 the joint business of the parties was more or less practically dissolved without however, settling the accounts amongst themselves. It is alleged that a temporary arrangement was made in April 1950 according to which the defendants were to work in 2/3rd portion of the site by constructing temporary workshop building and simultaneously the plaintiff by occupying the remaining 1/3rd portion of it. This arrangement, however, did not work satisfactorily; the plaintiff made an attempt to rebuild the business but failed which resulted in his serving notice on the defendants for distribution of the common property and assets and thereby to dissolve the workshop business. The notice brought no fruits, hence this suit for partition of the shop site between the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 - the plaintiff to keep the 1/3rd portion of the shop site alleged to be in possession already, for dissolution of the partnership business, settlement of accounts, and getting 1/5th of the common movable property in the shape of machineries, equipments etc. 3. The defendants in their written statements have denied the plaintiffs claim by saying that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and that the plaintiff has no right to sue the defendants for dissolution of partnership. They say that the partnership business was started by all the 5 i.e. the plaintiff and the 4 defendants. It was only for convenience sake that only plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had applied for the site on behalf of all of them and that the plot was allotted to the firm. They say that the partnership business was started by all the 5 i.e. the plaintiff and the 4 defendants. It was only for convenience sake that only plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had applied for the site on behalf of all of them and that the plot was allotted to the firm. They deny that the partnership business was dissolved in 1949, on the contrary it is alleged that the partnership business continued and is still running on in the same name of the Firm in fact. It is denied that the partners had ever carried on their business separately or independently. It is denied that the defendant was ever in possession of 1/3rd portion of the plot. The partnership business was carried on jointly for all times. All the partners have equal share in the business and are also equally liable for loss and enjoy profits. The plaintiff wanted to impose new conditions which were not acceptable. It is alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff is bound by clause 7 of the written document which provides that on retirement of a partner before 7 years from the start i.e. 1946 the retiring partner shall be entitled to 2/3rd of his dues and, therefore, the plaintiff has no more right than the above. Retirement of a partner cannot result in dissolution when the remaining members are willing to continue the business. If the plaintiff does not want to remain a partner he may cease to be so. He is, if he so chooses, entitled to adjustment of accounts to find out his share of profit and loss as the case may be, but he has no right to ask for dissolution of the partnership or claim for any land or other property in the partnership when the defendants forming the bulk of majority are continuing the partnership business. There is no cause of action; the plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. On the above findings, the parties went on issues. The following issues were framed in the case : (1) Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit ? OPP. (2) Is the suit maintainable in the present form ? OPP. (3) Was the plot No. 258/138 settled in favour of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in their private capacity or in favour of Firm ? OPP. (2) Is the suit maintainable in the present form ? OPP. (3) Was the plot No. 258/138 settled in favour of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in their private capacity or in favour of Firm ? OPP and D. (4) Was the plot already partitioned ? OPP. (5) Whether or not the plaintiff is competent to bring the present suit for the dissolution of the partnership business and its incidental matters and for the partition of the said plot ? OPP and D. (6) Is not the suit properly valued ? OPD. (7) What relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to ? OPP. If decision on issues 2 and 5 which are substantially the same does not go in favour of the plaintiff the other points which have been argued at length in this appeal by learned counsel of the parties, need not be discussed as that might prejudice a finding in case the plaintiff chooses to bring another suit in a proper manner. 5. While deciding issue No. 4 the learned District Judge has held that the workshop plot has never been divided. The evidence led by the plaintiff on this score has not been relied on by him on the ground that it is flimsy, hearsay and discrepant. His inspection of the spot has also not led him to believe that the site was ever partitioned and used separately. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the things were put right by the defendants after the present suit was filed. This argument is refuted by the other side by saying that if that was the case, the plaintiff ought to have brought it to the notice of the Court as a subsequent event. The explanation of the learned counsel of the plaintiff has not been accepted by the trial Court as there was little or no proof of it and also on the ground that had it been so, some action on the part of the plaintiff was in the ordinary course necessary. On inspection no visible sign was found that a separate workshop had been ever there in 1/3rd part of it as alleged by the plaintiff. I have no cause to differ from the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 4. (His Lordship perused the evidence and continued :) 6-7. On inspection no visible sign was found that a separate workshop had been ever there in 1/3rd part of it as alleged by the plaintiff. I have no cause to differ from the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 4. (His Lordship perused the evidence and continued :) 6-7. It is not unnatural that the other two partners i.e. defendants Nos. 3 and 4 who are younger in age thought it convenient that it would be sufficient for official purposes to file application for getting the site on behalf of the 3 elder ones, who are the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as by that time none had lost confidence between themselves. The fact that they have been working jointly from the beginning in the same concern and then again continuously working in the present workshop, definitely go to show that they are also partners in the present workshop though the application for getting the site was made by the elder three. It can be safely said, therefore, that the site was obtained for the Firm consisting of all the five members who are partners to this suit and for purposes and in the course of business of the Firm. (His Lordship went through the evidence and proceeded :) 8. The plaintiff has admitted in para No. 3 of the plaint that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 contributed their share on the new site settled with him and defendants Nos. 1 and 2. 9. The following reliefs are claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint para. 7 : "(a) That the plot of land described in schedule A below be partitioned equally among the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 with the distribution of its accompanying annual revenues and taxes. (b) That one-third of the plot be allotted and demarcated specifically to the plaintiff, maintaining his present position in the eastern site. (c) That the said partnership business of M. M. Workshop be dissolved. (d) That the accounts of the partnership business be taken by the court and one-fifth share of the plaintiff be allotted to him. (e) That the common property including the structure, machineries, equipments and apparatus etc. be distributed and the plaintiff be allowed to get his one-fifth share of them exclusively." 10. The suit suffers from multifariousness inasmuch as there are some causes of action alleged against defendants Nos. (e) That the common property including the structure, machineries, equipments and apparatus etc. be distributed and the plaintiff be allowed to get his one-fifth share of them exclusively." 10. The suit suffers from multifariousness inasmuch as there are some causes of action alleged against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and some against defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and thus resulting in mis-joinder of defendants and causes of action. As is clear from the above reliefs, the plaintiff has claimed partition of the workshop site between him and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, while dissolution of partnership against all the 4 defendants, also 1/5th share of structure etc. vide (e) above. 11. There is no allegation in the plaint of any breach of partnership agreement, fabrication of accounts, and misappropriation of partnership income on the part of the defendants partners. 12. The present suit is not covered by any off the grounds mentioned in S. 44 of the Indian Partnership Act. 13. The finding reached at by the learned District Judge on issues Nos. 2, 4 and 5, therefore, need not be disturbed. The plaintiff is not competent to bring the present suit as it stands. 14. Upon the above findings any discussion on the point of court-fee which ought to have been ad valorem as consequential relief is there is unnecessary and neither I should dwell on Ex. DJ "Rules of the Workshop", much debated by learned counsel of the parties. 15. This appeal, therefore, is rejected with costs. Pleaders fee Rs. 50/-. Appeal dismissed.