L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ). THIS is an appeal filed under sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21 C. P. C. , by the claimant in execution proceedings, aggrieved by the rejection of the claim,

( 2 ). The 1st respondent filed O. S. No. 265 of 1987 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil judge, Narasaraopet, against respondents 2 to 9, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,26,000/- with interest. The suit was decreed ex parte on 16-03-1994. Since the decree was not satisfied even after it became final, he filed e. P. No. 22 of 1995. During the course of execution, he got attached an extent of about Ac. 2. 00 of land, together with certain structures thereon, belonging to the 7th respondent herein, through orders of the execution Court, dated 28-11-1997. At that stage, the appellant filed E. A. No. 215 of 1998, under Rule 58 of Order 21 C. P. C. , stating inter alia that the 7th respondent joined two other persons, by name, Chundi venugopal and P. Venkata Prasad, and brought into existence a firm through partnership deed, dated 01-04-1994 (Ex. A-3 ). It is also their case that about one year thereafter, the 7th respondent retired from partnership through deed of retirement dated 24-04-1995 (Ex. A-4 ). It is alleged that towards his share, the 7th respondent contributed the attached property, and while retiring from the firm, certain amount was paid to him, towards his share. The appellant-firm is said to have been brought into existence with effect from 24-04-1995, through Ex. A-4, and that it was registered through certificate dated 30-06-1995 (Ex. A-2 ). The substance of the claim is that the E. P. schedule property does no longer belong to 7th respondent, and that it is the exclusive property of the appellant-firm.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 4 and 6 died. Except respondent No. 1, rest of them remained exparte. The 1 st respondent contended that the E. P. schedule property exclusively belongs to the 7th respondent. According to him, the whole exercise of bringing into existence of an alleged firm, through the 7th respondent and 2 others, and the alleged retirement of the 7th respondent from the firm, was undertaken with the sole object of keeping the E. P. schedule property away from the execution proceedings. It is his case that the timing of all these alleged acts; lack of bona fides on the part of the 7th respondent and his alleged partners, and lack of genuinity in the alleged transactions, would clearly disentitle the appellant from blocking the proceedings in the E. P. It was also contended that neither the partnership deed nor the retirement deed were registered, and for that reason, the claim itself is barred by Section 69 of the Indian partnership Act. A further plea was raised to the effect that an immovable property could not have been brought into the fold of the partnership or relinquished thereafter, except in accordance with Section 17 of the indian Registration Act.

( 4 ) SRI M. Chandrasekhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 7th respondent joined two other persons, by name, Venugopal and Venkata Prasad, as partners, and a firm was brought about. According to him, the 7th respondent contributed the petition schedule property towards his share; whereas the other two persons have arranged for the capital, for running the business. He contends that after the retirement of the 7th respondent, the property continued to be with the appellant- firm, and that the 7th respondent has no right, interest or claim in respect of the firm. According to the learned counsel, the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, does not operate, since the appellant-firm was registered by the time it submitted the claim. Learned counsel also submits that registration, as contemplated under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, is not necessary, either for contribution of an item of immovable property by one of the partners towards his share, or for leaving it with the firm, while retiring from the firm. In support of his contention, he rel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document