In a partnership dissolution suit, where the plaintiff admits her signature on a retirement letter but disputes its authorship, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to prove non-retirement and non-authorship.

B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 23-8-1991 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in I. A. No. 3449 of 1991 in O. S. No. 18 of 1982 refusing to recast the issue placing onus of proof on the plaintiff relating to retirement from the partnership with effect from 1-12-1978 pursuant to her letter dated 27-11-1978.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has instituted the suit claiming the relief of dissolution of the firm and for rendition of accounts on the premise that the partnership was subsisting, while the defendants raised a contestion that the suit was not tenable as the plaintiff was no more a partner with effect from 1-12-1978 due to her retirement.

( 3 ) THE grant of relief is based on the main issue i. e. the continuance of the plaintiff as a partner in the firm concerned. If she was continuing as a partner as on the date of presentation of the plaint, she would be eligible for the relief as sought for. If she had retired as mentioned in her letter dated 27-11-1978, she would not be eligible for any relief, as the very retirement would non-suit her. In her pleadings in the plaint she took a stand that her signatures were obtained on blank papers; thus indicating that the letter of retirement dated 27- 11-1978 pleaded by the defendants was a manipulated one and that she is not the author of the contents of the said letter dated 27-11-1978. On the other hand, the defendants in the written statement have pleaded that the plaintiff had executed the letter of retirement dated 27-11-1978 and denied the allegation that they had obtained the signature of the plaintiff on the blank papers, be it stamped or ordinary. As such, the triable issue was whether the plaintiff had retired from the partner ship with effect from 1-12-1978 and the crucial document in this regard is the letter dated 27-11-1978 pleaded by the defendants. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the said letter did not contain her signature. It is her cafe that though her signature appears on the said letter, the same was obtained on the blank paper and the authorship of the contents of the document cannot be attributed to her.

( 4 ) THE court below on the basis of the pleadings has framed Issue No. 2 which is a material triable issue as mentioned infra:"whether the plaintiff had retired from the partnership of the first defendant-firm with effect from 1-12-1978?"

( 5 ) AS the burden- of proof is cast upon the defendants with regard to the retirement of the plaintiff from the partnership, the defendants had sought for recasting of issue placing onus of proof on the plaintiff instead of on them in view of the fact that the plaintiff had admitted her signature on the letter dated 27-11-1978, though disputed the authorship of the contents of the said letter.

( 6 ) IT is contented by Mr. N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the signature on the letter of retirement dated 27-11-1978 is not denied by the plaintiff and that even though she denies the authorship of the contents of the said document on the ground that signatures were obtained on blank papers, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the same and the onus shifts to the defendants only after such proof is adduced firstly by the plaintiff. In support of his proposition, he relies upon a judgment of a Division bench of this court in Sivaramakrishnayya vs. Kasiviswanadham. Dealing on this aspect, this Court has ruled thus :"in the case of a letter where there can be no possible question of execution in the sense that no formalities are insised upon by law, proof of a man s signature under it is prima facie proof that the contents of the letter are attributable to his authorship. If a person denies that he has written a letter which contains his signature, then surely he must prove that he alleges i. e. , the letter was got up on a blank piece of paper containing his signature, as also the circumst

Click Here to Read the rest of this document