JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. NC Paul, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellants as well as Mr. D.Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC challenging the concurrent finding returned by the judgment dated 05.08.2013 delivered in Title Appeal 56 of 2011 by the Additional District Judge, Court no.1, West Tripura, Agartala. At the time of hearing, the following substantial question of law was framed for hearing of this appeal by the order dated 31.03.2014: “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court suffer from perversity?” 3. Mr. NC Pal, learned counsel has submitted that both the courts below have failed to construe the clause 5 of the Deed of Dissolution of the Partnership dated 01.04.1990 (Exhibit-1). The said clause has been extracted in the judgment dated 16.05.2011 delivered in Title Suit 11 of 2007 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala while dismissing the suit. For purpose of reference, the said clause 5 of Exhibit-1, the Deed of Dissolution of the Partnership between the partners namely Haralal Saha and Mihirlal Saha (the original plaintiff) is extracted hereunder: “First party i.e. Sri Haralal Saha thus became entitled to carry on and continue the business either alone or in partnership with any other person or persons under the same name and style having the same brand and name and style as before along with same labels on the packet of the Bidi as was prevailing in the packet of “SIKHA BIDI” and from 01.04.90 AD”. 4. Mr. Paul, learned counsel has strenuously argued before this court that this clause 5 of the said Deed of Dissolution should be treated to have been in force during the life time of Haralal Saha and thereafter the said brand or the properties relating to the brand cannot be used either by the legal heirs of Haralal Saha or any other person through Haralal Saha. This aspect of the matter was improperly appreciated up by the courts below. This aspect of the matter was improperly appreciated up by the courts below. While revisiting the said submission, this court has come across the finding of the trial court while dismissing the Title Suit No. 11 of 2007 which was instituted by the original plaintiff namely Mihirlal Saha seeking the reliefs interalia: “(a) pass a decree for declaration that the defendant are not entitled to use the name of the plaintiff as the proprietor or founder of BIRI with brand name SIKHA BIRI or ADI SIKHA BIRI and by doing so, the defendants have acted illegally; (b) pass a decree of perpetual injunction restraining both the defendants and also each of them from using the name and picture (photo) of the plaintiff as the proprietor or founder of SIKHA BIRI and ADI SIKHA BIRI and from depicting his picture in the label/cover of the product; (c) pass a decree for lump sum compensation amounting to Rs.1.10 lakhs payable by the defendants jointly and severally to the plaintiff”. 5. It is not in dispute that the defendants, the respondents in this appeal, have claimed as legal heirs that they have the right to continue the business with the brand name including the label of the product, SIKHA BIRI. The trial court by the judgment dated 16.05.2012 has observed as under: ‘In the present suit it is evident from the testimonies of the witnesses and the exhibited deed of dissolution of partnership it is found that the original plaintiff Mihir Lal Saha allowed the other partner namely Haralal Saha and the subsequent partners of the firm to use the name and photograph of the original plaintiff Mihir Lal Saha on the packets of “SIKHA BIRI” and by that way the original plaintiff Mihir Lal Saha had waived his right to raise any question in future regarding use his name and photo on the cover/packets of SIKHA BIRI by another partner of the firm namely Haralal Saha and also by some other person or persons if they continue the business of SIKHA BIRI by forming another partnership firm though in the eye of law the original plaintiff Mihir Lal Saha had no right to do so as under section 40 of the Partnership Act. After the retirement of the original plaintiff from the partnership firm itself caused the dissolution of the said partnership firm at once as the present partnership firm in question was consisted only two partners namely Mihir Lal Saha and Haralal Saha. So, if the defendant No. 1 & 2 committed any wrong by using the name and photo of the original plaintiff Mihir Lal Saha (now dead) the plaintiff has nothing to do against the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 except lodging of a complaint to the appropriate authority”. 6. The said finding was challenged by the present appellant in the court of the District Judge by way of an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC being Title Appeal No. 56 of 2011 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2013 on a note of affirmance on the finding of the trial court in the following manner: “Despite the partnership business being dissolved, defendants continued to use the brand name of the dissolved firm and this entitled the plaintiff to get the reliefs as prayed for. Though plaintiff avoided mentioning the term of the dissolution deed particularly those mentioned in para 5 of the deed which is already reflected above, when the deed came into picture in the form of evidence, he did not deny its contents. The contents clearly allowed Haralal Saha to continue the business as before either singly or with others. Defendant No. 1 firstly pleaded and thereafter adduced evidence that registration/license of the Sikha Biri was in the name of her husband and the business continued as it is after the dissolution of the partnership business on 01.04.1990. Subsequently on the death of her husband, she entered into the business and the registration was changed in her name. This could not be disproved by the plaintiff. The partnership deed marked Exhibit-C clearly proves that the partnership business was reconstituted on 20.07.1990 among the partners Haralal Saha and his sons Subal Saha and Gour Saha. Though the partnership deed dated 04.04.2003 among Haralal Saha. Gour Saha and Babita Saha is not proved, oral evidence of DWs 1 & 3 in this regard could not be dislodged by the plaintiff. Though the partnership deed dated 04.04.2003 among Haralal Saha. Gour Saha and Babita Saha is not proved, oral evidence of DWs 1 & 3 in this regard could not be dislodged by the plaintiff. In view of the specific clause of the dissolution deed mentioned at para-5 and for the reasons stated above, there is no basis of the objection raised by the plaintiff after 17 years regarding use of his name and his photograph by the defendants in continuing the business of Sikha Biri. So, no fault can be found with the findings given by the learned court below against issue nos. V and VI” 7. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has additionally pointed out that the defendant No. 2 has obtained a fresh Central Excise Registration Certificate for running is business for manufacturing, distributing and selling ‘ADI SIKHA BIRI’ using the same label of ‘SIKHI BIRI’. The defendant no. 2, the respondent No.2 herein, cannot have such right and the defendant no. 2 has been doing so illegally by using the photograph of the original plaintiff. 8. The sheet anchor of the controversy has been nailed down by the fact finding courts. This court is of the view that the conditions of dissolution as laid down in clause 5 of Exhibit-1 is a whole-some transfer, not only of the title or the business but the intellectual property as attached to it as a whole and as such it cannot be even wildly construed that the said transfer which is reflected in the Deed of Dissolution was limited to the life time of the other partner namely Haralal Saha. It was perpetual in nature and it was a whole some transfer. Even though in different words, the appellate court has observed that after 17 years the plaintiff could not have raised such objection. The said observation shall mean that the plaintiff had no locustandi to institute such suit against the defendant. 9. This court does not find any perversity in appreciation. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. 10. Send down the records after drawing the decree in terms of the above.