The High Court · 2025

Petition under Order XLI rule 5(1) of CpC r/w Section 1i, CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affiiavit rir"Jin srpport of ttrr petition, the High court mav be preased to sray the execution Jligr"ri ; Jil;;;" ;r.Lo by the trial court rn o S No 1078 of 2017 on ilre'riL or xvil Adi tionar senior civir Judge, City Crvil Court, Hyderabad aatea I i-ZOZJ confirmec by the appellant court in A S No.136 of 2023 dated 02nd day of Aprir 202s, by re'xrv njitionar chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderaoao orsmissing the ac rear fired by the petitioner/appellant, pending disposal of tre sA., ln tne interest r f justice. "itn" .,:}!lllEr.Gli:l!i-hr r .'.. Counsel for the Appellant in both SAs : Sri Syed Ahmed Ali Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 3 in both the SAs : Syed Mounis Jafer Abidi The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT ':i.:,3:!:L. t. 4 , The Hon'ble Smt. Iustice Renuka -t1 tfa Second cal Nos.414 and 475 of ',,. 125 Common ud ment: l{earcl Sri Sted Ahmed Ali. learned crunsel [or the appellant ancl Sri Sycd Nlounis fafer Abidi, lealr., cl counsei for resporrclcnt Nos.? ar-rd 3, on the question of adrrirsion. Irerused the recotd.

2. T hese second appe als are directed agaln: t rhe common judgmcrrr ancl clcclec passed b1' the learned XI\ r\clcll. Chief Judge, Cin'(--iiil Court, Hiderabad. in A.S.Nos.l'.2 and 736 of 2023, clared 02.().t.202.5, confirming rhe comrr rn juclgment passecl bv the XYIL\clcll. Senior Civil Judge, Cjr- Civil Court, Hr,delabad rn () S.Nos.1078 of 2017 ard 1498 ,r, 2019, dated

07.01.2023. 3 'l'he bric[ lacts o[ the casc are rhar C. i.No.1()78 of 2017 is filcd bv rcspondent Nos.1 and 2 scekrrl recoverl. oF possc-\s1orr. rccc)\-cL1- of arrcars of rent of Il .10,80,000/_, 2 perpctual injunction and profits with respect to propctrv admeasurins 1650 sq.yds., out ()[ total extent oi 1 900 sc1 vcls bcaring I I.No.1(r 3 616/1, Ibrahim N{ansion, Chanchalgucla, Flvderabad, bounded by North: Road, Sourh: Rcrnainir.rg properry o[ respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, Ifast: Neiuhbout's propern, and \X'est: Neighbour's ProPert\r. Thc rlcceascd rcspondent No.1 rvas the absolute orvncr and possess<>t- of tltc entirc propcrtv u.1-"u.,r.ing 1900 s9.),ds., bearins I-1.No.16-.1 616/1,lbrahim Xlansion at Chanchal.gr.rcla, Hvclerabacl. IIc hacl given thc properh'to an extent of 1650 s9.),ds. to thc [atl'rcr of appellant by namc Syed Jallal Bukhari [rrr carrying on btrsiucss in the name and stvlc of J.R.Company' for a m()nthlv renr o[ Rs.30,000/- from the ycar 2014 onwards. For tl.rc purpose oF business convenicnce, the father of dcfendant No.1 got 1 Partnership l)eed cxecuted though the natute oI rclationshill u'as landlord and tcnant. 'fl-re lasr l)artncrsl-rip l)eed s':rs cxccutecl tn thc r.car 2014 and the same expired in the vear 2017. -I'hetcatrer' no Partnership Dccd u,as excctttcd ancl there is [ailure on the - 1 parr oIthc appcllanr t() pav the monthlv rent fr()n) thc vcar 2017 orru,al'ds. -fhcleiirrc, strit ftrr cviction has been filc,l + A[rcr tllrne oi tlre sr.rit [or evicrion, the l.rcllant hcrcin filccl surt ridc ().S No.l,19U ot 2019 lc:r perpctu,il injunction as thcrc u,as a dcnrancl firul rcspondcnt Nos.1 and ] to vacate the sr.rit scl'reclrrle I)rol)crt\. ( )ut oI tcar of forciblc clisrr rssr'ssion, the saicl suit is filcci uporr rccc'ivirrg notice in the suit li,r cviction -5. Since lroLl-r thc srrirs had samc parrics, sar-r-r c Lrbicct matter and the iacts lceclinq t() cause of action are thc sr n-re, both the suits rr.crc clubbccl ar.rcl cticlence rvas 1ed in O.S.N,r 1018 of 2017 said suit is a con-rprchernsir.e suit sceking rcli- ot cr icttotr, 2S arfcllrs of rent rLncl rncsnt' profrts. C)n the basis ol :r'idence lead br'borh the parties s.hich is consisting oIPW1, ])!, I and F,xs.A1 to,\4orrbcl-ralf of rcspondenrNos.1 ar,d2and I)\ 1, D\Iv2and Flxs.B l to 116 on lrchalf' of appellant, the suit li r cviction in ().S.No.1078 oi20 ll has been dccreed and tl.rc srrrr tor Perpetr-ral injr-rrrcrton in ( ).S.No.l i9tt oi 2019 has l;c r clismissed. .g 4 Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferrcd .\.S.Nos.1i2 of 2023 and l.i6 of 2023 cl-rallenging the judemcnt and clccrce in both thc suits. -l'[-rc learned First Appcllate Conrl upon considering the case of both the parties dismissed thc appeals confirmrng the )udgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. :\ggricr.cd bv the sarne, the Second Appeals are prefelrecl. 6 In both the Second Appeals, the appellant raised thc [ollorving substantiai questions of law: lhat both rhc appellanL and rrarl (lourt belorv fail to consrcler rhc Fact and evidence on record i.c. I:x ,\1 to lix r\ -l [[ed b1 thc l)laintif[ ald enrirc surt of thc l(esponde nt s / Respc,nden r s,/ L)e[cnclants is bascd on pertncrship deed cxecuted bets.ecn thc l)latnttf[ and l)c[cndanr datcd 01 09 201,1 marked subjectcd to rhc rvhich rs an objcctron raised bl rhc Dcfendant as I-x il, unregrsrered partncrship dccd as such suit hled bt l(cspondents / Itespondt'n ts / Dc fencla nrs is not lcgalll mainrainablc as pcr Section 69 oI Indian partncrship act and tlre sarne rs liablc rcr bc dismisscd. As per Scctron 69 of Indian partncrsl p ,\ct: liFlrl](lT OI I NON-RtrC}IS'I'RAI'ION _ 1) \o suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or confctrcd br rhis act shall be insrituted irr anv court bv or on behalf of anl pcrson suing as partrrer irr a firm against the fttm ot aot' perso,r alleged to be or to havc bccn a partrtcr rn thc firtn uLrlcss thc firm ts ) rcgistercd arrd thc pcrs()lt sullg is ()r has bccn sholrt Lt rhe registcr oi hrms as a pirtner rn thc firrn. 21 No sutt t(, cnfi)rcc r lrght rtising from a con r ct shal] bc rnsfrturerl irr errr c.urt lrr ot t,rt lrchalf ol t Frrm rlllir sI arl\ third pxrtr Lurlcss rhe firrn ts rclrlstcrc(l an(l thc persolls strrtl rlre or l-I2\'e bccn shorvn in the rcgisrcr of firnrs as plrtners iu thc 6r 1 \s such suir filed br thc Rcsponrlcttr/RcsPondent/ I )ci ilrdant rtself ls not l.naintanablc :rrrd thc srrlc is Liablc to bc disrni:s cl barrcd bv [at,, trithour consrderitrt thc prcposttion of larv, tlre t rhc surt arainst thc r\ppcLlent,/ \ p pcllent / Plaintill rc lnd l)ectcc rrt ( ) S \t, l-1')S ol lttl9 ort rhc tLlc o[ \\ Scnrot (-nrl lrrclgc. (.tn (.trtl (.r,rrrr, Ht.dcrabacl clrtc l ancl appcllenr confirm tlrc c()rrfir'rnrng fhc tr2il courl I [)ccrct' rn () S No 1+9ti (,f 2(ll() r'idc (.otntnotr ]-r l)ccrec passecl tn \S No ll] ol 2ofl l)atcd 02 der r 'l hc I I,rn'blc \[\ .\drltrtottrl (.hici luclge, (iiu. irI Dccreed -'Juclgment \dJinonal I t- of ro71 Iqmcnl and lgment ancl \prtl 2025 .rr-il (iourt, Hvderabad. Dtstnissing thc rppcrl filcd bv the.\ppcllr 0r/Plarntiff, ls such sanre rs Iiablc to bc sct lst,lc. 'lhat borh rhc eppcllant entl tratl (-oult bclorv fail tr llct encl cr-L<ier-rcc rttl rccrtr<l Lr I:r \l ro [:x -\ - l)Lrintrif ancl cnrirc sur( r,I thc llcsponclcnts 1l c,nsider thc rlcd br tl.rc spondents,/ Dcfintlents is based r.,n scrics oI partnershrp dccd crcr L t d benr,cen thc PlainritT rnd l)etertdurtt rttrl llrst parrncrship rl.'tc drv of [)cccnrl>cr 1995, ut (.latrst (12) rt is mutualh x,! datrd 08th :cd that thc plrrtncr no 1 rnd 2 shall [:lc [ul>lc li,r rcdetnption of ecl , oi l{s .i,00,00[),/ (I{s 'l hrcc Lakl.rs onh,) cortrriburcd bi ] bcforc the ex;rtrc o[ thc ugrcccl pcriotl of (07) vcars i p'.rrrner rI() .l shaLI tctnatn ils I)lrtllcr trll the entl. rcdecnrcc[, rvl.rLch flll date I(csponrlcnrs/ltcspondt:nt, ilLrl r<, rcdccrnccl ttrr srttnc, ,rs st,clr plrt,-r.rship is srii :rntl \ppclhrr/ \ppellant/l)lrrnrrlf tcrnained as ^ l)i1 I Llcc 1l1n()unt :lftncl Do 3, iling u'hich amount is l)efcndants n erisrcnce Lct as suclr 's \i 6 having full legal nghr end authonty to continuc thc partncrshrp business and sh:rll be lcgally cntitle to stav and pcrform thc busrncss and Rcspondenrs/ l(cspondcn ts/De lendants arc nor having anr. Icgal nght and xuth()rlr\ to illcga[r interfcrc in rhe pcaccful posscssurn of thc partnership prcmiscs ancl in thc pcrformancc of thc parrnershilr bustncss, as such \ ppc lla n t /.\ppclla nt,/ I'lain tiff is lcgallr cntitlc k r rhc pcrpcrual rnjuncrion against thc Rcspondcnts,/l{csp,rnclents/ Dcfendants and rhcrr associates or aov other person or pers()ns acdon oo their bchalvcs. J. -lhat borh rhc appcllanr lnd trail (,ourt belou, fail to consrder thc lact and cvidcncc ()n rcc()rd i.c. I-,r \1 to Irx A 4 filed br rhe PlarntrtI and cntrrc suit of the Respondents/Rcsponclcnts / Dcftndanrs ts lrascd ()n scrics oi partncrship dccds execured bett-ccn rhe Plaintr[[ and [)ctcndanr. thcrc is an arllrra on clausc to soh'c rhc dis;rutc bclirrc rhc :rrbrrr:rrron as agrccd and su.qgcstcd l)\ thc partncrs murual consc[t, as such suit is barred bl.Secti,rn 11181 (l) of thc .\rbitrarion and conciliatic.rn Act 1996.

4. 'Ihe both thc aplrcllrrrt and trail Court bckrrv fall to considcr thc fact and oidcncc on rccorcl in lr.x.\t ro I..r .\ 4 filed bv thc Plaintiffand Ex.Bl to L-r.86 tllecl bv the Defendant and camc t() \rrons conclusion and appcllant court confirmcd thc judgment and [)ecrccd passccl lrl thc trei] court in ( )S -\o 1498 of 20I 8, on thc trlc of \\'II .\dditrorrrl Sentor Cl-rl .Judee, C-in' Civil (irult, I Irclcraberl dated 07 07-2023 though no -[ural rclarronship cxists bets,een thc Respondents/ Rcsponrlcnrs/l)efcndants encl Appellant/:\ppcllant/ l'laintiff. 5 -I'hat both the appcllarrt and trail (lourt bekrrv farl ro consider the fact ancl cridcncc ()rr rcc()rd i.e. Fls. \ I to I'1s,,\4 Elcd bv thc I)laurrr[[ and Er.Bl ro trr.l)5 filccl br rhc Dctindlnt arttl centc t() \\'r()ng 7 conclusioD rud al)pclhnt court confirmcd thc r lqmcnt and Decrccrl pessctl lrr thc rnil c()ur io C).S No 1,198 ot. ( 8 on the filc of I\ IL\drlitrorrlrl Scnr()r Civrl Jtrdge, (-in Cirrl (.,rrrr , Ilrdcrrbad datcd ()- 0l l0ll, rhat rhe l{cspondenrs/Rcsp( )n(l(.n : /l)cliudenrs tall to tllc anr tLrcrrrrrcrrrs ()rr rccord or adduce allv c\,-l rrcc t.) sll()rr thar rhc \ppcllantT' \ppcllanr/ Plarntr[f cornmrrr, r dclrtu]r Ln palmcnr oi lclrrs or plrtncrshtp protlt to rhern s.ith r r srLltsrlntial cvidcncc ort lr:cord r,, rrhout consrdcring the samc tr.r.rl , ,rrrt c,rdered the Plerntifi ro par Ils.10,ti0.000/ as lcasc/rcnt arnorr r lor:r pcriod ftorn ()l {)9 101+ I() "1'0tl-"017, s'hich thc appcllanr ,rrfinncrl the saDrc, \\hrch thc \ppcllant/ \ppcllant/l)lailutl-dcp,r.r '.1 rhc snnre under protc\t lirr tlrc nutnltcrinc thc apfcal atld l() 'rl tilin stnr ()n the crccurion ,rf rht ltrtlgrrrcnt encl Decrcc pussccl br r r( ui,rl (:()Lltl l 'I'he abovc sLrl)stanrial qLrestiorls oI lal rrre primarily focus-.ed on rhe c\ccution of Parrnership l)ccrrs benvcen the appcllant's Fat hcr ancl rcsp()ndcflr Nos. 1 and 2 I .om the year 1995 tollowccl lrr. tht' last Parrnership Deed c\ccr rrcl in rhe year 2014 between al)pellant ancl respondenr No.2. lr vict, of the exisrcncc of pat tne rsl-rip Decd whe rein rhcre is ; )r()\ ision for sharinq of pr:c>tlts irt -50o/o:50ozb share, thc ,rl) ) rllant clcnied cxls rence of jrLral rclationship and maintainabilirr 1- thc suit for cvicrion on thc basis o[ landlord-tenaflt relati(), rs r ) \\'hen rhe plaint u'as filccl, rclc'rcncc was made onll trt rir, PrLrrncrship X 8 Deed of thc year 2014 as if that was the only Partncrship Deed executed berween thc partrcs, hou,cver, thc Parrncrship Dccds have been executecl bcrs.ccn dre partics sir-rcc thc t'car 1995 till the year 2014. 'l'here has beer-r continuous dcmand on the palt ol the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to vacatc thc suit schedule propertlr but the partnership and busincss continlrccl cr-cn aftcr cxpirv o[ the Leasc Dced in the r.ear 2()17. 'l'hcrc is an issuc raised about thc maintainabilitv of tl.re suit r-rndcr Scction 69 of the Indian Partnership ,\ct about no strit ro cntr>rcc a ri{rht arising t}r>m a contracr or conferred b',- this .\ct shall bc institutcd in an1, Court by or on behal[ of anv pcrs()n suinq as a partncr in a firm agair-rst the firm or anY person allcgecl to bc or to havc bccn a partner in the firm unlcss the Frm is rcgisterecl arrcl thc pcrs()n suing is or has been shorvn in the ltcgistcr o[ F-rrms as a partncr in the [rm. Further, no suit to enforce a riuht arising frorn a contract shall be instituted in any Cou.'t by or on bchalf o[ a firm against any thi-rd parn. unlcss the flrm is registcrccl ar-rcl rhc l)crs()ns suing rtc rrr have becn shown rn the Rcgistcr of l'-irms as partncrs in thc firm. - 9 8 'I-he r-r-raio tocus is on lack of cvidcnci o shrxv jural relationshrp oI landlord-tcnant and runnins thc r rsincss in the suit schcdule pr()pcrh- 2rs a partncr o[ tl'rc l)ar-trrt r rhtr Finl on tl-re basis oi Partnership Deeds. ( )n tlris c()unr.. ilrrcc there is e\pirv oI unregistcre d partncrship Deed datc.] 01 .09.2('14/ [,x..\1/B2, the strit for cviction has becn tllcd r r rhe basis o[ ()\\:ncrship anci not pavmcnt o[ rcnts tor' occr-rpltr )n ()i the suit scl.rcdtrle propcrt\ 9 Ir-r tact. the casc of tl'rc rcspor-rdcnts is rlr r rhcir crisrcd a jutal rclationshrp lrcnveen tl-rc parties, hr>rvcvr.r'. r tlre rcqucsr of rl-rc appcllant, a l)artncrsl'rip l)ccd \\,'a s cxccur( t tirr rhc solc pulposc of Liccnse s ro run thc lrusincss. Iror rlr prrr;losc o[ running busincss, there rvas a ncccl to havc a l)ar r rership l)eecl to obtlin liccnscs froln relevant authoritics arrd ir r rl'rar c()ntext, tl-rc Partnersl-r4t Deed is exccutcd and thcrc ls t( I)artncrship busincss betrvccrr the partics \I - l0

10. The version of the appellant herein is that ever since thc 1,621 1995, business has bccn run uncler thc l)artncrship Deeds and thcrc is no landlorcl- tcnanr rclationshill. I r.r [act, the respondent No.2 signed on thc Partnership Deed having been induced into signing the same taking advantage o[ hcr old age and soft nature. There rvas an oral undertaking t() \'acate thc propertv aftcr expiw of rhe Partnership Dccd on 31 .08.2011 . After said datc, er.en though thcrc r.vas dctnand [<rr vacating the suit schedule properh-, the appcllarrt c'lid not \racatc thc same Thereafter, the appeilant Frled ().S.No.2351 of 2017 on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, (-itv Civil Court, Hvdcrabad for perpetuai injunction along s,ith l.r\.No.173 ol 2011 sceking interim injunction. The responclcnts had filed caveat and therefore , received notice in rhe suit filed b1' tl'rc appcllant.

11. f'hc consistcnt plca taken bl the responclents is that when the las t ])artnership Decd ivas executed, the aereed rent rvas Rs.30,000/- per month. \\'hcn therc rvas tailure to pav the 7 rcn ts ! a lcgal noticc was issued on 04.1 0.20 1 1 ro vacare the properflr 2n{ to I)a\I arrears of rent frotl tl 09 2014 to I I ()8 2017 ancl for rncsnc profits till thc date ot handins over phvsical posscssion. 'l'he casc of appellant is rrrr therc \\ias palrncnt oF rents u,hich was Rs.200/- per day r,' rcn rhe inirial I)artrrr:rshrp I)eed clatcd 08.12.1995/Ii,x.R1 rvas ( \cclrtecl tor a pcriorl of scr.cr-r ycars commencing from ( I I I 1995 tc) ll.l{).1002 and in rhc last Partncrship l)eed rlrrrt rl 01.09.201.1, thc rcspor-rdenrs werc cntitlcd to receive Rs.1,0()t ) pcr tunction As rcnt and Rs.2,000/ per fuflction as pr< 'ti . c, rminq ro Its.3,0t)0/- per function for utilizarion of p cmiscs. 'fhc rcsporlclcnts had to I)a\- the water consumpti( ) I charges and rnrrnicrpal tases. 'fhc sccurit\. deposit of Rs.l. t( ),()00/ \\'as ilcpositcd at thc unlc ol-cxccution of Partnersh 1 l)ccd tlated (ll.(19.1()14. .\ccorcling ro thc appellanr, after cx1 r.r. c,f rhc last l)artrrcrship l)cccl oI the year 2014, rhe deceas,r I rcspondent No. L acrccd t() entcr a fresh Partnership Deecl anr rcrrnittccl the appcllllt to contir-luc to do busincss in rltc trit scl'redulc l2 property. Suddenly, on 25.09.2017, the respondents demanded the appellant to \racatc the propern-. Since tl'rc l-rall rvas alreadr' bookcd, it was reported that vacating the propertt' irtmediatelr' does not arise. Ar that time, there s'as a quarrcl on 01.10.2017 and therefore, suit for perpctual iniunction rvas filecl

12. The aforcmenlioned factual backgror-rr.rcl cstablishes dre fact that respondent Nos.1 and 2 rvcte thc ot'ncrs o[ thc suir schcdule proPcrt\', thcre r',,as exccLrtion of l)artrlcrsl'rip Deeds flrom the year 1995 up to 201-1 for running catcrirls business lt;r functions in thc suit schcclule ProPert\'. ,\frcr thc cxpin' of last Partnership Decd, thcrc r'vas dispute and detnancl [or r''acating the property and in that context, suits har-c bccrr filccl t3 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 rclied on thcir vcrsion that the actual relarionship is thar o[ a landlord-tenanr arl(l onl\' facilitate the business of the appellant, the Partncrship Deed is exe cuted whereas thc case o f tl-re appellant is tl.rat thcrc is no relationship of landlorcl-tenant and rhercf< rrc, the sr-rit in 1i ().S.No. 1078 ot 20 l7 filed on the basis of landlor: renant is not rlrainrainablc. Iiurt[rcr, thc suit is not mairltain I rlc against a l)xrtlrcr tor: er-tcl ton Ir 1+. edmirtcd fact that the Partnersl.ri : Dccd dated 01.()9.1t)1+/Lr \ I /ll2 cxpired on 31.08.20 I I arrd fron.t ()l 09.ltl I - onu'ltds, thcrc is no Partnership l)cc: ltl cxls [encc. Strclr Ircing thc cast', ther only rclationship berrl't t r I thc parties s'oulrl bc thar of a lar-rcllord and an unauthorizecl < t cr-rpar-rt. Since rhcrc is rro rr ritrcn l-casc I)ccd between thc partic,. ll'rc cristence oi l.andlord -I'cnant cannot be proven. In any' c:r ic, there is a plcrclirru Lrv thc rcsponclcnts abour owncrship ()\'( r thc properh, crccution o[ i):trtr-tcrship Dced and its cxpxl-. ]irr thcr, rhcrc is aclrnission bl the appcllant about the nofl-Pavnt(' ()l arr(rlrnts atlcr ercctrtion oI tl-rc last Partncrship Deed ir-r thc r -'ar 201-1 .) In vicu, oi thc oral and documentan, cvi, I'r-rcc adduced bv lroth the parrics. tlic lcarned Trial Court hcltl rI irt there is an acL.nission aborrr thc cxpin,of the Partnership Dc,' I and rhele is l4 no oral or written agreement berween the parties to cofltinue the business in the suit schcdule propernr. Fr-rrthcr, in vicw of the Iegal notice dated 04.10.2011 lF'x.J.2, it is hclcl that the appellant has no right to continue to stav in rhe suit schedulc ProPCrn on account of failure to pay the rents from 01.09.2014 to 31.08.2017 [rrr an amount of Rs.10,80,000/ . Since therc is no cxteusion of Partncrship Dced and the ownership o[ the rcsl.roriclcuts o\rcr the suit schcdule properry is adrutted, thc learnccl 'I'rial Court trcared the suit for evictior-t AS one betu.'een thc orr'-ncr and occupant and therefore, dccreed thc suit. 'I'l.re factual fir-rdings given are confirmcd by the First Appellatc Court

16. In the Second Appeal, the appcllar.rt is c:rnr-assing maintainabilitl. of a suit on the basis o[ riglrts trisinq [rom a c()ntract of Partncrship Dced. Ti-ris cluestion is n<>t applicable ro rl-rc facts of the prcsent casc as the Partncrsl-rip Dced dated 01 .09.2014 has cxpircd and or-rlv after its cxpirv, thc suit for e\:lc uon was filed. After cxpin. oI the Partncrsl-rip l)eecl, therc is vl_ t5 n() rcl?rti()nship of I)artncrs berween the parties. "hcrcfbre, the issucs of regismation or uon- regis tr:ation of the l)a - ncrship Deed ancl maintainalrilitr o[ a suit onll by a partncr r - a rcgistcred part r-rcrship t-inn agrLins t anothcr partner do not usc. None of thc conrentions raisccl ()n the basis of partnership u:c applicable to the prcsc.lt cllsc as rhcrc was no rclati<>nsh I ol' partners bctu,ccrr rhe prrrrics r() th(' suit as on the date of tilrr 1 oi tl-re suit. lhc se'concl ir-r-r1-rortant point raised by r'r . appellant is tltat en adr:urcr ilnr()rr1l oilts.-1,00,000/- was pairi I r thc par-rner No.-l i.e. rppelhnr hcrrcirr bcfore thc expiry of 1ls.( r'd pcriocl oi sc\'('n lelr[s arrcl suirl anr()Lrn[ l-ras to bc redeernecl. ailing which, thc Partncr No..l shlLIl contintre to remain as a pal trrr ujttil e ntire am()Lrnt is reclcc'r-nctl. l'his clausc is found in Pat' r urship Decd darccl 08.12 i()95,/ Irr.ll L Said clause is nor li trncl in thc Partrrerslrip Dcccl rliLrctl 01.11.2007. Further, thc ppcllant did not procluce rhe I)rrtrrcrsl-rip Deed of 01.09.2t t -l r(-) Pf o\re criste ncc oi said clausr'. 'f l-rcrefore, thcre are r r, r s11[51urr6ul I I l6 quesdons o[ Iaw arising tiom thc Partncrsl.rip Act duc to the tacr that the un-registered Partncrship i)ced cxprrcd and no [resh Partnership Deed was executed bct'"r,ccn rhe parties. -fire ot'nersl-rip of the propcrry by' thc rcspondcnts is acccptcd. Thc pavmcnt o[ amounts either in thc form o[ profits or rcnts IS accepred. Thcre fore, this Court is not inclincd to irrtcrfcrc u'irl-r the [actual findings given by thc lcarncd 'l'rial (-ourt and t]re lcarncd [:irsr r\ppellate Court. ,\s sr-rcl-r, thc Scconci . \1'rpcals arc nor rnaintainable and liable to be dismisscd

18. In rhc result, both rhc Sccond ;\ppcals arc disn'risscd rrt thc stagc oI adrnission. No costs Nliscellaneous applications, iI anr', pcnding ir.r rhcsc Sccorrcl .\ppeals, shall stand closcd. //TRUE COPY// SO/. V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR /t^ SECTION OFFICER To \ Sr s/sa 1 The XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad 2 XVll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 3. One CC to Sri Syed Ahmed Ali, Advocate tOpUCl 1 9"" 99 to Sri Syed Mounis Jafer Abidi, Advocate tOpUCl 5 Two CD Copies w -J ,q" HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 - r'-j::---\ i ;r{E sl.'r-.:' d i [r.[ ?Ei COMMON JUDGMENT SA.No.414 AND 415 of 2025 q - ':;it,i lil \ - -,! '.) ..:. DISMISSING BOTH THE SECOND APPEI, \LS (\ (r' Cl\ 'i, a '/ I .l-n 4