The said partners are Sheth Bakarali Fatehali Jafarali Bakarali and Fatehali Bakarali.
Appellant said that Bakerali earlier entered into a partnership with his four sons for carrying on the business of sale of medicines in the suit premises and a partnership deed dated November 15, 1955 was executed between them.
The recitals of the partnership deed dated November 14, 1974 are as under Whereas, the above two partners join the following partners in the partnership, which partnership is doing business of medical and provisions stores in the name and style of M s. B.A. Fatehali Sons, opposite to Raopura Tower, Vadodara, on the strength of the partnership deed made on Kartak Sud 1 of Samvat Year 2021, the 15th date of November, 1955.
Earlier, Bakerali was having his business as a scale proprietor in the name of M s Fatehali Sons, After the partnership was formed, it was given the name M s. B.A. Fatehali Sons.
High Court, by the impugned judgment dated July 28, 1995, allowed the revision and, as numbered, set aside the orders of both, the Judge Small Causes and the Joint District Judge.
But the following three partners have settled their accounts and have voluntarily retired from the partnership business with effect from the date of execu tion of this deed, i.e., Kartak Sud 1, of Samvat Year 2031, Thursday, the 14th day of November, 1974.
Against that judgment respondent filed an appeal before the Joint District Judge who by judgment dated November 6, 1993 affirmed the judgment of the judge Small Causes and dismissed the appeal.
While Bakerali was having 4 anna share, his four sons were having 3 anna share each.
They were the partners in the partnership deed dated November 15, 1955 as well.
The appellant had alleged that Bakerali had unauthorisedly and unlawfully sublet, assigned or transferred his interest in the suit premises to his two sons without obtaining his companysent.
This partnership deed specified the shares of the five partners in the profit and loss of the firm.
In the meantime, Bakerali died and his legal representatives were brought on record.
This partnership companytinued till November 14, 1974 when a new partnership deed between two sons of Bakerali was executed and in terms thereof Bakerali and his two other sons retired from the business of the partnership.
On October 31, 1984, the eviction suit was decreed.
The appellant filed proceedings for eviction of the respondent in 1978 in the companyrt of Small Causes at Vadodara.
Thereafter, respondent took the matter to the High Court in revision.
The Partnership was at will and under clause 7 thereof, it was provided that only the partner No.
1 Bakerali will be the exclusive proprietor and owner of the goodwill of the business, place of the business and all other rights of the business.
