Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, K.MANMADHA RAO
Cheers Garden Paradise Bar And Restaurant, Rep. By Its Managing Partners Mr. G.R. Channakeshava, S/o. Sri. Rangegowda – Appellant
Versus
D. Jayanna, S/o. Late Kenchegowda Major – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and appeal context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. reliefs sought in the original suit. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. background and procedural history of the case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments regarding limitations and partnerships. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. court analysis of the evidence and findings. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 6. validity of the partnership and dissolution. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. final dismissal of appeal. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
This Commercial Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Commercial Court and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru ('Commercial Court' for short) in Commercial O.S.No.103/2020.
2. We have heard Shri. M.C. Jayakirthi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Ms. Sadhana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The suit was filed by respondent No.1 seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Declare that the alleged registered partnership deed dated 26.11.2007 created between the 2nd and 4th defendant is not binding on the above plaintiff as it is void abinitio in nature.
b) Pray for dissolution of first defendant partnership
The partnership deed from 2007 was declared void, maintaining the existence of the original partnership from 2002.
Even if plea of limitation is not set up as a defence, Court has to dismiss suit if it is barred by limitation.
Plaintiff cannot dissolve the partnership at her will and pleasure.
Failure to provide evidence for notification and unauthorized property sales by partners led to the rejection of the dissolution suit; jurisdiction determined by prior judicial orders must be respect....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mutual agreement for partnership dissolution and the significance of partnership deeds in determining the intention of the pa....
The court held that a partner's possession of dissolved firm property does not create ownership rights against co-owners, and claims of adverse possession are not maintainable.
A suit for specific performance cannot be maintained by partners of a dissolved firm; and claims are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and the Limitation Act.
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
