Back
2003(2) Supreme 185
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Pamuru Vishnu Vinodh Reddy -Appellant
versus
Chillakuru Chandrasekhara Reddy & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6519 of 1994
Decided on 17-2-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate, K. Maruthu Rao, Mrs. K. Radha, Advocate for Guntur Prabhakar, Advocate/Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.S. Narasimha and A. Bhattacharyya, Advocates.
Held : The cause of action for the plaintiff arose on the date of his retirement from the partnership firm and on which date the liability of the defendants also arose. In this view, the plaintiff could certainly claim the value of his share as on 5.4.1971 which interest till the payment was made. The view of the trial court that the relevant date to value the share of the plaintiff is as on the date of the Commissioner s report cannot be accepted, as there was no nexus between the date of retirement of the plaintiff from the firm and the date of Commissioner s report. The date of Commissioner s report may be fluctuating, i.e. it could be earlier or later in the absence of any time-frame. In this view, the High Court was right and justified in passing the impugned order upsetting the order of the trial Court. We have every good reason to concur with the finding recording in the impugned order by the High Court. We find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Para 14)
JUDGMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-The few facts which are relevant and necessary for disposal of this appeal in brief are that one Pamuru Rama Subba Reddy filed the suit O.S. No. 126 of 1976 for dissolution and accounting of the partnership assets of the firm Vijay Mahal Theatre. The defence set up to resist the suit was that the plaintiff and the 4th Defendant retired from the firm in the year 1971 and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek dissolution of the partnership and the settlement of the accounts. The suit was decreed. In the first appeal, the High Court affirmed the findings of the trial court; however, set aside the decree for dissolution of the firm and directed the defendants to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff towards his share in the assets of the firm on valuation without resorting to the sale of the assets of the firm. The High Court directed the trial court to make an enquiry into the valuation and to decide the date on which the valuation of the plaintiff s share shall be arrived at taking into account that the plaintiff s share was not paid to him. Against the said judgment of the High Court, special leave petition was filed before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn in 1987.
2. The first defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 7 to 11 were added as his legal representatives. Mr. Subbareddy to whom the share of the plaintiff was said to have been transferred was impleaded as 12th defendant to the suit as per the directions of the High Court. During the pendency of the enquiry into the valuation of the plaintiff s share in the assets of the partnership firm, the plaintiff died and his minor son Pamuru Vishnu Vinodh Reddy, represented by his natural guardian was added as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.
3. The trial court, pursuant to the directions given by the High Court, appointed a Commissioner for ascertaining the value of the share of the plaintiff as on the date and also as on 5.4.1971. Thereafter, the son of the deceased plaintiff (appellant herein) filed I.A. No. 270 of 1987 to decide the date on which the valuation of the plaintiff s share was to be made before the Commissioner proceeds to hold an enquiry as per the directions of the High Court. The learned Addl. District Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the said application holding that the date on which the Commissioner values the property was the relevant date to ascertain the valuation of the plaintiff s share in the partnership firm. The 3rd defendant, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Addl. District Judge and held that the relevant date for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the share of the plaintiff was the date on which he ceased to be a partner, observing that if the latter date than the date on which the plaintiff ceased to be a partner was taken for the purpose of ascertaining the value of his share, it would confer unjustified windfall on the outgoing partner and it would be inconsistent with the concept of retirement or expulsion. The son of the original plaintiff who was the respondent No. 1 in the revision petition before the High Court, aggrieved by the order made by the High Court, is before this Court in this appeal challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order.
4. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to which is the relevant date for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the share of the plaintiff in the partnership firm i.e. whether 5.4.1971 or the date on which the Commissioner made the valuation of the share of the plaintiff.
5. Shri M.N. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that the High Court was not justified in reversing the order of the trial court declaring that the date on which the Commissioner valued the property of the partnership fi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
