Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 825 (PNJ)

Chiranjit Lal Sahni v. Sudershan Kumari

2004-08-04

N.K.SUD

body2004
Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. Plaintiff appellant filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts against the legal heirs of late Sh. Sudhir Sundra and Sh. Gian Sundra. The case set up by him was under:- 2. Plaintiff had entered into a partnership with late Sudhir Sundra on 14.12.1964 in the name and style of Ram Chander and sons (Gas Division). The said firm applied for the agency of Burshane Gas to M/s Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distribution Company, New Delhi and the Agency was duly allotted to it. As per the partnership deed dated 14.12.1964 (Exh.P-19) entered into between the plaintiff and Sudhir Sundra, the firm was to deal in the sale of Burshane Gas and allied products connected with it. Both the partners were to invest equally and were entitled to share the profits and losses equally. This business was carried on by the firm till end of 1969 and the plaintiff had been dealing with M/s Burmah Shell Company in respect of the said Agency as a partner and also operating the bank accounts of the firm. In the end of 1969, Late Sudhir Sundra approached the plaintiff with a proposal that the partnership be dissolved and the Gas Agency be allowed to be retained by him in his personal name. This proposal was not accepted by the plaintiff. Plaintiff also did not agree for amendment in the partnership deed dated 14.12.1964. In the year 1970, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited which was also impleaded as a defendant, took over the Burshane Gas Agency from Burma Shell and started supplying LPG in the brand name of Indane through the Agencies of the same Distributors as had been appointed by Burmah Shell Company. Late Sudhir Sundra informed the plaintiff that the Agency of Indane Gas had been taken in the name of their firm-M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division) as it was incumbent upon the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to give it to the same distributors who were earlier supplying Burshane Gas. He was also informed by Sudhir Sundra that necessary formalities of agreement with Indian Oil Corporation had also been completed. The plaintiff, therefore, honestly believed that the business of distribution of Indane Gas was being carried out by the firm M/s Ram Chander and Sons ( Gas Division) of which he was a partner. He was also informed by Sudhir Sundra that necessary formalities of agreement with Indian Oil Corporation had also been completed. The plaintiff, therefore, honestly believed that the business of distribution of Indane Gas was being carried out by the firm M/s Ram Chander and Sons ( Gas Division) of which he was a partner. The plaintiff was actively and diligently involved in the said business from April, 1970 onwards. In March, 1972, Late Sudhir Sundra started declaring that he was sole proprietor of the firm M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division) and asked the plaintiff not to visit the premises of the firm. It is, then, that the plaintiff demanded rendition of accounts of the said firm and also pressed for dissolution of the firm. According to him, the partnership constituted M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division) entered into vide partnership deed dated 14.12.1964 continued to be in existence and was carrying on the business of distribution of Indane Gas even after 31.3.1970 and, thus, he was entitled to his share of profits in the same. He further alleged that under these circumstances, he did not want to continue in the said partnership firm and wanted its dissolution. 3. The defendants contested the suit. According to them, the partnership between the plaintiff and Sudhir Sundra, which was entered into between them vide partnership deed dated 14.12.1964 stood dissolved with effect from 2.4.1970 consequent upon the termination of the agency for the sale of Burshane Gas. It was claimed that the accounts of the said partnership were gone into and settled up to 31.3.1970 and, thereafter, no business was carried on by the said partnership. Thus, it was claimed that the suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts from 1.4.1970 was misconceived. It was explained that Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra, defendant No. 5, who were carrying on business at Chandigarh under the name and style of M/s Ram Chander and Sons had obtained an agency from M/s Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Limited for the distribution of Burshane Gas within the municipal limits of Chandigarh, on 12.10.1964. For this purpose, a regular agreement was executed between the Company and Sudhir Sudra and Gian Sundra on 12.10.1964. For this purpose, a regular agreement was executed between the Company and Sudhir Sudra and Gian Sundra on 12.10.1964. Thereafter, Sudhir Sundra had entered into a partnership with the plaintiff on 14.12.1964 in the name of style of M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division) for exploiting the aforesaid agency of Burshane Gas. The agency for distribution of Burshane Gas came to an end on 2.4.1970. Since the partnership had been entered into only to carry on the business of the said agency, it automatically stood dissolved on 2.4.1970 and the accounts of the partnership as on 31.3.1970 were duly settled. Thereafter, Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra obtained a fresh agency from the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for and on behalf of their firm M/s Ram Chander and Sons, as per Companys letter dated 20.1.1970 (Exh.D-30) and a regular distribution agreement was subsequently entered into on 10.1.1972 (Exh.D-31) between the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and M/s Ram Chander and Sons of which Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra were partners. It was claimed that the plaintiff Chiranjit Lal Sahni had no claim whatsoever in the business of the agency of Indane. It was also explained that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited was under no obligation to appoint the same agents for distribution of Indane Gas who were earlier appointed by M/s Burmah Shell Company for the distribution of Burshane Gas. It was open to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to appoint any person or firm as their agents for supply of Indane Gas. It was denied that Sudhir Sundra had ever represented to the plaintiff that the agency of Indane Gas had been taken in the name of their partnership concern M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division) in which the plaintiff was a partner. It was explained that the supply of Indane Gas started from April, 1970, whereas the firm- M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division ) stood dissolved on 2.4.1970 when the distribution of Burshane Gas had come to an end. It was, therefore, claimed that since the plaintiff had no right, interest or claim in the business of distribution of Indane Gas. which was being carried on by the partnership firm M/s Ram Chander and Sons consisting of Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra as partners, there was no question of any rendition of accounts for the period commencing from 1.4.1970 in respect of the said business. 4. which was being carried on by the partnership firm M/s Ram Chander and Sons consisting of Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra as partners, there was no question of any rendition of accounts for the period commencing from 1.4.1970 in respect of the said business. 4. Indian Oil Corporation Limited which had been impleaded as defendant No. 6 also filed a separate written statement in which it was pointed out that M/s Ram Chander and Sons, the partnership firm constituted by Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra, had been appointed distributors for the products of LPG at Chandigarh on 20.1.1970 and that no other person except the above said partners of the firm-M/s Ram Chander and Sons had any interest or right in the distributorship. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed from time to time;- "1. Whether the Agency of Burshane Gas was allotted to M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division) by M/s Burmah Shell? OPP 2. Whether the Burshane Gas Agencies were taken over by the Indian Oil Corporation from Burmah Shell in 1970 and whether the Indian Oil supplied their Gas through firm M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division) as its distributors? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any account after 1.4.1970 of the alleged firm Ram Chandra and Sons (Gas Division)? OPP 4. If issue No. 3 is proved, who is the accounting party? OPP 5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present for? OPD 7. Whether the relief sought in the plaint has not been assessed for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether there was any partnership between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 4 or their predecessor in-interest on or after 1.4.1970? OPP 9. Relief. ADDITIONAL ISSUES:- 1A Whether Gian Sundra defendant No. 5 and Sudhir Sundra deceased played fraud upon the plaintiff by executing the agency agreement for the distribution of Indane Gas with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., in the name of J.H.F. Firm M/s Ram Chandra and Sons? If so to what effect? 2A Whether Gian Sundra and the successor-in-interest of Sudhir Sundra deceased are estopped from taking the plea that the plaintiff along with Sudhir Sundra was not an agent of M/s Burma Shell Oil Storage Distribution Co. Ltd.? If so to what effect? 2A Whether Gian Sundra and the successor-in-interest of Sudhir Sundra deceased are estopped from taking the plea that the plaintiff along with Sudhir Sundra was not an agent of M/s Burma Shell Oil Storage Distribution Co. Ltd.? 3A Whether the funds stock in trade was cylinders, Hot Plates, Cycle Rickshaws, Three Wheeler, Scooters Rickshaw and other property of the firm Ram Chandra and Sons (Gas Division) Chandigarh had been used for carrying on the business of the distribution of Indane Gas after 31.3.70? 4A If additional Issue No. 3 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to the share of profits in the business of distribution of Indane Gas to the extent of 1/2 share? 5A Whether the partnership between late Shri Sudhir Sundra and Charanjit Lal Sahney plaintiff stood dissolved? If so when and whether accounts of the said partnership were settled between the partners? If so up to which period? (Objected to)." 6. The parties led voluminous evidence. Various applications were filed from both the sides either for amendment of the pleadings or for amendment of the issues and for production of certain documents and discovery of documents etc. and were dealt with by the trial Court. 7. The trial Court observed that there was no partnership between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 5 to take up the Gas Agency Indane i.e. of the Indian Oil Corporation and the business which they started by virtue of the partnership deed dated 14.12.1964 stood dissolved on 2.4.1970 and there has already been rendition of accounts. 8. Accordingly, the trial Court decided Issues No. 1 to 4, 7, 8, 1A, 2A, 3A and 5A against the plaintiff. Issue No. 5 was decided against the defendants, while Issue No. 6 was decided in their favour. Issue No. 4A was held to be redundant and the suit was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.4.1983. 10. Issue No. 4A was held to be redundant and the suit was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.4.1983. 10. The lower Appellate Court reappraised the voluminous material placed on record by both the sides and it was found that from the documentary evidence it stood established that the agency of Burshane Gas had been allotted to M/s Ram Chander and Sons consisting of Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra with which the plaintiff had no concern whatsoever. Representative of M/s Burmah Shell Company, who appeared as PW-9, had confirmed this fact. He had also confirmed the fact that the Company was continuing into the business of distribution of Burshane Gas although it had stopped marketing it in Chandigarh area where Indian Oil Corporation Limited had started distributing Indane Gas. He had also stated in his cross-examination that Burshane Gas dealings in Chandigarh had come to an end on 31.3.1970. Thereafter, the dealers had started obtaining fresh agencies for Indane Gas. 11. The lower Appellate Court also found that the Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited had stated on oath that the Indane Gas Agency had been granted to M/s Ram Chander and Sons which consisted of Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra as partners. This fact was further evident from the letter of appointment dated 20.1.1970 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, in favour of M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Exh.D-30) and copy of agreement dated 10.1.1972 entered into for this purpose of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and M/s Rain Chander and Sons (Exh.D-31). The Lower Appellate Court, therefore, held that since the distribution ship of Burshane Gas stood terminated with effect from 2.4.1970, the partnership of Sudhir Sundra with the plaintiff which had been entered into vide partnership deed dated 14.12.1964 stood automatically dissolved as the object for which it was founded had come to an end. It was also held that since the accounts up to 31.3.1970 had already been settled, no further rendition of account was necessary as the plaintiff had no right or interest in the business of distribution of Indane Gas. 12. It was also held that since the accounts up to 31.3.1970 had already been settled, no further rendition of account was necessary as the plaintiff had no right or interest in the business of distribution of Indane Gas. 12. From the above, it is clear that the core dispute in the present case is as to whether the plaintiff-appellant has any right or interest in the Agency of Indane Gas or not. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that Indane Gas Agency was allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation in favour of the firm-M/s Ram Chander and Sons of which Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra were partners. It has also been found that this Agency was not a continuation of the earlier Agency of Burshane Gas and, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant had no right or interest in the Indane Gas Agency. Can such concurrent findings be disturbed by this Court in a Regular Second Appeal? 13. The scope of powers of this Court under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, in a Regular Second Appeal has been considered by the Apex Court in a number of cases. 14. In Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal, 2001 A.I.R. SCW 4377, the Apex Court in Para-10 has observed as under:- "10. The question of law formulated as substantial question of law in the instant case cannot, in any way, be termed to be a question of law much less as substantial question of law. The question formulated in fact is a question of fact. Merely because of appreciation of evidence another view is also possible would not clothe the High Court to assume the jurisdiction of terming the question as substantial question of law. The question formulated in fact is a question of fact. Merely because of appreciation of evidence another view is also possible would not clothe the High Court to assume the jurisdiction of terming the question as substantial question of law. In this case Issue No. 1 as framed by the trial Court, was, admittedly, an issue of fact which was concurrently held in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and did not justify the High Court to disturb the same by substituting its own finding for the findings of the Courts below, arrived at on appreciation of evidence." In Kaluram v. Shrinathdas and Ors., 2001 A.I.R. SCW 2290, it was held that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court was that the land did not belong to the Gram Panchayat but it was owned by the appellant therein. The High Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction, in view of the evidence of the trial Court, to come to a conclusion that the appellant had not established his title to the land in question. Similar view was expressed in Chandra Bhan v. Pamma Bai and Anr., 2001 A.I.R. SCW 2295. 15. In Rajgopal (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Kishan Gopal and Anr., 2003 A.I.R. SCW 4986, in para-20, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "20. In the view on hand, the first appellate Court, after taking into consideration and discussing the oral and documentary evidence threadbare, recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that there was an agreement between the natural and the adoptive fathers to the effect that adopted son shall be treated to be the son of both the them and entitled to inherit their properties and consequently, the adoption of Goverdhan Das was in ordinary form. Mr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents strenuously contended that the finding recorded by the first appellate Court was unwarranted. The finding on this point recorded by the first appellate Court which was final Court of fact was a pure finding of fact and could not have been interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1906, more so when no question of law much less, substantial one was involved......." Similarly, in Ranjit Singh (Dead) by LRs and Ors. v. Jaimal Singh and Ors., 2003(3) I.C.C. 173, the Apex Court in para-2 has observed as under:- "2. We have heard counsel for the parties and find that the case of plaintiff-respondents before the trial Court was the Mst. Gaindi died on 18.3.1966, and the power-of-attorney holder executed sale deed on 12.3.1966. It was disputed by the defendant-appellant. The defendants case was that Mst. Gaindi died on 12.3.1966. Under such circumstances the burden of proof was on the plaintiff-respondents to establish that the power-of-attorney holder executed the sale deed when Mst. Gaindi was alive. In the absence of such an evidence the suit could not have been decreed. Moreover, both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding off act that Mst. Gaindi died on 12.3.1966 and, therefore, the High Court fell in error in interfering with the said finding of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure." In Thiagarajan and Ors. v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Ors., 2004 A.I.R. SCW 1617, the Supreme Court in para-23, dealing with the scope of Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, has observed as under:- "23. ........In our view, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in reassessing, reappreciating and making a roving enquiry by entering into the factual arena of the case which is not the one contemplated under the limited scope of jurisdiction of a second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C." In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Anr., 2003 A.I.R. SCW 5316, it was held that "the High Court, in exercise of its limited jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. ought not to have entered into the evaluation of evidence afresh. The High Court has interfered with a pure and simple finding of fact based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence which the High Court ought not to have done." The Apex Court in para-33, ultimately, held as under:- "33. The offshoot of the above discussion is that no question of law much less a substantial question of law arose in the case worth being gone into by the High Court in exercise of its second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the C.P.C. The High Court was bound by the findings of fact arrived at by the two Courts below and should not have entered into the exercise of re-appreciating and evaluating the evidence. The findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below did not suffer from any perversity. There was no non-reading or misreading of the evidence. A high degree of preponderance of probability proving title to the suit property was raised in favour of the appellant and the Courts below rightly concluded the burden of proof raised on the plaintiff having been discharged while the onus shifting on the defendant remaining undischarged. The judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and has to be set aside." In M. Rangasamy v. Rengammal and Ors. 2003 A.I.R. SCW 4078, it held by the Apex Court as under (para-13):- "13. ....... On consideration of the evidence on record, the first appellate Court concluded that Nanjammal was physically healthy and in a sound disposing mind when she executed Exhibits B-6 and B-7 and that she voluntarily executed the said documents with full knowledge of the nature and purport of the documents she was executing. These findings, in our view, have been correctly recorded by the first appellate Court. Be that as it may, we see no ground on the basis whereof the High Court could reappreciate evidence and reverse the said findings while deciding a second appeal." 16. From the above, it is clear that in the absence of any substantial question of law, this Court cannot interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. 17. When confronted with this position, Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, stated that the findings recorded by the Courts below were perverse as material evidence had either been misread or misinterpreted or has been totally ignored. When asked to substantiate this claim, he took me through the voluminous records, document by document, which merely show that the plaintiff had signed certain documents or cheques, which have been fully discussed by the lower Appellate Court. However, despite numerous opportunities granted to the counsel, he failed to refer to any document on record which supported the claim of the appellant-plaintiff that he was a partner in the business of distribution of Indane Gas. 18. However, despite numerous opportunities granted to the counsel, he failed to refer to any document on record which supported the claim of the appellant-plaintiff that he was a partner in the business of distribution of Indane Gas. 18. On the other hand, there is direct evidence on record from Burmah Shell Oil Storage Distribution Company of India Limited and the Indian Oil Corporation Limited that the distribution ship of Burshane Gas was allotted to M/s Ram Chander and Sons vide letter dated 12.10.1964 and the necessary agreement was entered into by the Company with two partners of the said firm: namely, Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra, on that very date. It is important to note that on 12.10.1964, when the Agency had been granted, neither the appellant-plaintiff Chiranjit Lal Sahni nor the firm M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division) was in the horizon. It was only by virtue of a partnership deed entered into by Sudhir Sundra with the appellant-Chiranjit Lal Sahni, executed on 14.12.1964, that the plaintiff came into the picture. This deed clearly shows that Sudhir Sundra had entered into this partnership with the appellant-plaintiff only to carry on the business of sale of Burshane Gas and other products allied therewith. The contention of the appellant-plaintiff that the Burshane Gas was taken over by the Indian Oil Corpora-lion, which started the distribution in the name of Indane is clearly falsified from the evidence of PW-9, the Sales Representative of Bharat Refinery also known as Burmah Shell. He had clearly stated in his cross-examination that the said company was continuing to distribute Burshane Gas in other areas and that it had only stopped its distribution in Chandigarh where its dealings had come to an end on 31.3.1970. Thus, it could not be said that the Indian Oil Corporation had taken over the Burshane Gas as claimed by the plaintiff. It is also proved from the record that the Indane Gas Agency was not a continuation of the Burshane Gas Agency in a different name. It was a fresh Agency for which fresh applications had been invited. The firm/M/s Ram Chander and Sons, consisting of Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundram had applied for its distributorship vide application dated 19.1.1970. On the basis of that application, the Agency was allotted to the said concern by the Indian Oil Corporation vide letter dated 20.1.1970. It was a fresh Agency for which fresh applications had been invited. The firm/M/s Ram Chander and Sons, consisting of Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundram had applied for its distributorship vide application dated 19.1.1970. On the basis of that application, the Agency was allotted to the said concern by the Indian Oil Corporation vide letter dated 20.1.1970. This letter no where shows that it was merely a continuation of the earlier arrangement in respect of supply of Burshane Gas. Still further, a formal Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the Company on the one hand and Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra, as partners of M/s Ram Chander and Sons, on the other, on 10.1.1972. It may also be mentioned that even Shri Rajinder Parshad Bhatnagar, PW-9. Sales Representative of Burmah Shell in his cross-examination had also confirmed the fact that Burshane Gas dealings came to an end on 31.3.1970 in Chandigarh and, thereafter, supply of gas in that area started taking fresh agencies of Indane Gas. The appellant-plaintiff appears to have staked his claim in the distributorship with the Indian Oil Corporation. However, vide letter dated 10.8.1972, original of which is available on the record, the Company had informed him as under- Ref: LPG/1.3-A August 10, 1972. Shri Charanjit Lall Sawhney, 146, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh. Dear Sir, This has reference to the following: 1) Our letter No. LPG/13-A dated 8.7.1972. 2) Your telegram dated 4th August, 1972. 3) Your letter dated 4th August, 1972. We have gone through our record and wish to notify the following facts for your information: The Corporation appointed M/s Ram Chandra and Sons- a partnership firm constituted by Shri Sudhir Sundra s/o Shri Gyan Sundra and Shri Gyan Sundra s/o Shri Ram Chandra, as its distributors for the product LPG at Chandigarh on 20th January, 1970. The Corporation has also concluded distributorship agreement with the said partnership firm through its partners aforesaid. As per records maintained by the Corporation, no other person other than the above-said partners of the firm has any interest or right over the said distributorship. In view of the above-stated circumstances, the claim preferred by you is hereby rejected. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Sd/- (M.S.G. Rao) for Branch Manager. As per records maintained by the Corporation, no other person other than the above-said partners of the firm has any interest or right over the said distributorship. In view of the above-stated circumstances, the claim preferred by you is hereby rejected. Thanking you. Yours faithfully, for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Sd/- (M.S.G. Rao) for Branch Manager. It is, therefore, clear that the distributorship of Indane Gas was a fresh Agency allotted by the Indian Oil Corporation to M/s Ram Chander and Sons, consisting of two partners: namely, Sudhir Sundra and Gian Sundra. Once that is so, it is immaterial whether the earlier firm-M/s Ram Chander and Sons (Gas Division) had been dissolved in March, 1970 or not as the said concern had no claim against the Agency for distribution of Indane Gas. It has been admitted by the appellant-plaintiff himself that his account up to 31.3.1970 had already been settled. It is also not in dispute that no business in respect of distribution of Burshane Gas had been carried on after 31.3.1970. None of the documents containing the signatures of the appellant after 31.3.1970 show that he had ever been treated as a partner in the business of distributorship of Indane Gas. In fact, the plaintiff has been found to have tampered with the certain documents and had been untruthful and evasive in his replies. The lower Appellate Court has dealt with this aspect in paras 25 to 29, as under:- "25. Therefore, the documentary evidence led by the respondents by any of documents Ex.D33 and D34 establish that the Gas Agency was granted to M/s Ram Chander and Sons and not to the "Gas Division" and the witnesses produced by the defendants from the Burma Shell, as already mentioned above, have supported the case of the respondents whereas the appellant in his statement has not been able to say that he was ever a partner of M/s Ram Chander and Sons. The statement of the appellant throughout is that of denial which strongly reflects the act and conduct of the appellant. He is concealing the truth. The mere production of the letter Ex.P-73 that Sudhir Sundra asked him about the business of the firm, does not make him a partner of M/s Ram Chandra and Sons. Hence, the findings on Issue No. 1 as arrived at by the learned trial Court, stands affirmed. 26. He is concealing the truth. The mere production of the letter Ex.P-73 that Sudhir Sundra asked him about the business of the firm, does not make him a partner of M/s Ram Chandra and Sons. Hence, the findings on Issue No. 1 as arrived at by the learned trial Court, stands affirmed. 26. As regards the finding on Issue No. 2,1 have already mentioned that the agency of Indane Gas had been granted to the firm M/s Ram Chandra and Sons. DW6 Shri R.C. Kali, Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation has stated on oath that the Indane Gas Company has been granted to M/s Ram Chandra and Sons. Copy of the agreement was Ex.D31, Ex.D29 is the letter of appointment of M/s Ram Chandra and Sons as the Agent of Indane Gas, Ex.D17, D19 and D20 are the vouchers of payments made to the Indian Oil by M/s Ram Chandra and Sons. In view of the cheques of the PGI and other proof referred to above in the preceding discussion of Issue No. 1, the appellant has tried to forge his participation by adding a word Gas Division. Burma Shell Company issued various letters Ex.D61 to D67 and in some of the letters there is a stamp of M/s Ram Chandra and Sons (Gas Division) and such a rubber stamp which is commonly and easily available, would not help the appellant to say that the Indane Gas Agency was allotted to M/s Ram Chandra and Sons (Gas Division). Moreover, it is very important to note that there was no agreement between the appellant and the deceased Shri Sudhir Sundra, to enter into any partnership for the supply of Indane Gas. So also, for getting an agency in the name of Gas Division from the Indian Oil Company, in the name of the deceased did not a rise. Hence the finding on issue No. 2 is also affirmed. 27. Now coming over to the findings on issue Nos. 3, 5 and 8 regarding the dissolution of the firm, the statement of account and the balance sheets have been placed on record which are Ex.P28 and P29. Besides that it may be referred to that the cheques Ex.D19, D20 and D21 have been issued to clear the accounts of the appellant. 3, 5 and 8 regarding the dissolution of the firm, the statement of account and the balance sheets have been placed on record which are Ex.P28 and P29. Besides that it may be referred to that the cheques Ex.D19, D20 and D21 have been issued to clear the accounts of the appellant. It is necessary to be pertinent that these cheques were issued by M/s Ram Chandra and Sons to the appellant and obviously if the appellant had been a partner of the firm, there would have been no necessity for M/s Ram Chandra and Sons to pay the amount individually to the appellant. Letter Ex.P4 placed on record from the Oriental Bank mentioning that the appellant was entitled to operate the account of Gas Division is an unilateral act by the appellant. I have already mentioned above that the appellant has been very evasive in his cross examination regarding the amounts, he had received. A part of his statement in this behalf may be reproduced:- "It is incorrect to suggest that the firm Gas Division was dissolved on 31.3.70. It is also incorrect to suggest that assets and liabilities of the Gas Division firm has existed on 31.3.70 were taken over by Shri Sudhir Sundra and that I was to be paid Rs. 15067.66. I cannot recollect if I was paid about Rs. 14000/-. Whatever was paid to me I had issued the receipt for the same. I do not recollect if a sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid to me in cash on 27.4.77. It is correct that I received Rs. 1000/- from Ram Chandra and Sons vide receipt Ex. D17. I do not recollect if cheques No. 31855 dated 25.1.71 for Rs. 1500/- drawn by Ram Chandra and Sons in my favour on Oriental Bank of Commerce was given to me towards the amount due to me. Similarly I do not remember whether I received cheque No. 32719 for Rs. 1000/-; cheque No. 208609 for Rs. 1000/-; cheque No. 208629 for Rs. 2000/- and cheque No. 583317 for Rs. 2000/-and cheque No. 583317 for Rs. 2000/- drawn by Ram Chandra and Sons in my favour on different dates." 28. So the appellants having received the amounts byway of cheques placed on record still does not remember, therefore, an interfence has to be drawn against the appellant that he does not want to tell the truth. 2000/-and cheque No. 583317 for Rs. 2000/- drawn by Ram Chandra and Sons in my favour on different dates." 28. So the appellants having received the amounts byway of cheques placed on record still does not remember, therefore, an interfence has to be drawn against the appellant that he does not want to tell the truth. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no dissolution deed nor any signatures of the appellant obtained on the balance sheets and nor any dissolution regarding the vehicles used by the agency or good will was ever considered if the firm was dissolved. It may be again emphasized that the appellant was only a partner to help in the supply of the Brushane Gas. The business of Brushane Gas stood terminated w.e.f. 2.4.70 and that of the Indane Gas started. So the firm automatically got dissolved when the very purpose of the firm did not exist. Burma Shell did not stop the manufacturing of the gas but stopped its supply in Chandigarh and, therefore, the object for which the Gas Division was founded stood dissolved and the payments were made through the cheques, mentioned above. 29. The appellant plaintiff has never mentioned in the plaint specifically as to what amount was due or what tampering with was done by the respondents to harm him." No infirmity in the above findings has been pointed out. It may also be mentioned that the plaintiff had been regularly filing his Income Tax Returns up to Assessment Year 1970-71 i.e. up to the year ending 31.3.1970. It is an admitted position that he did not file his Returns thereafter. If he considered himself to be a partner in the new Indane Gas Agency also, he ought to have filed his return for Assessment Year 1971-72 which was due in 1971. It is his own case that it was only in March, 1972 he had come to know that Sudhir Sundra was declaring himself to be the sole owner of the Indane Gas Agency. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to explain why return for the Assessment Year 1971-72 was not filed. The intention of the plaintiff also becomes suspect in view of the fact that he chose to file the suit after the death of Sudhir Sundra with whom he had entered into partnership in respect of distribution of Burshane Gas. The intention of the plaintiff also becomes suspect in view of the fact that he chose to file the suit after the death of Sudhir Sundra with whom he had entered into partnership in respect of distribution of Burshane Gas. 19. Thus, it is clear that the Courts below have taken into consideration the entire material which was relied upon by the plaintiff and it has not been shown that the same has been mis-interpreted or ignored. Thus, I am satisfied that in the absence of any substantial question of law, no case for interference by this Court has been made out. 20. Before parting, I may mention that counsel for the appellant had stated that Exhs.P-73 to P-91 and P-124 to P-165 are not available on record, which may have supported the plea of the appellant-plaintiff that he was a partner in the business of Indane Gas after 31.3.1970. However, counsel for the respondents has correctly pointed out that no pleadings were based on these documents nor was any reliance placed on the same before either the trial Court or the lower Appellate Court. Even before me, counsel for the appellant has not been able to plead as to in what manner the said documents were relevant for considering the claim of the plaintiff. It is, therefore, not possible to entertain a new plea at this stage based on the aforesaid material. 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.