Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
Manohar Daulatram Ghansharamani - Appellant
Versus
Janardhan Prasad Chaturvedi - Respondent
Suit No. 220 of 2013; Notice of Motion No. 504 of 2013, 1542 of 2018, 447, 672 of 2019
Decided On : 21-08-2019
Civil Procedure Code - Rule 11 - Order 7 - Indian Partnership Act - Section 43 – Illegal and arbitrary - Agreement for Sale – Claim of compensation - dispute is in respect of two portions of land, one admeasuring 55 Acres 33 Gunthas and the second admeasuring 45 Acres 9 Gunthas situated at Kasarwadavli, District Thane. The entire property, which is more particularly described in the Schedule annexed to the Plaint at Exhibit E, has been referred to as "the suit property - Case of the plaintiff in brief is that one Shri Dijendra Chandra Mitra, the predecessor of the defendant nos.2 to 12 entered into an agreement dated 6.9.1965 with one Madhukar Joglekar to purchase a portion of the suit property admeasuring 55 Acres 33 Gunthas. He obtained possession of the said land admeasuring 55 Acres from Madhukar Joglekar. Upon the death of Madhukar Joglekar his successors/heirs executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Dijendra Mehta and authorized him to take possession and do all other acts in relation to the said land – Held, It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff has challenged the validity of agreements dated 31.3.1987, 14.11.1988 and 9.5.1995 in a suit filed in the year 2013. The plaintiff has tried to justify the delay in challenging the validity of these agreements by contending that he was not aware of the execution of these agreements. He further contends that he came to know about these agreements on 27.7.2010 i.e. on receipt of the documents furnished to him pursuant to the Order of this Court - It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant no.1 in collusion with late D.C.Mitra tried to dispose of the partnership property for their personal gain. Hence, he filed a criminal complaint 22.5.1996 against the Defendant no.1 and others for forgery and cheating. The averments in para 21 of the plaint also indicate that the plaintiff had issued letter/notice dated 1.5.1996 to Prem Daryani- the Director of Defendant No.14 and to the defendant no.15 Anand Builders informing them that he is one of the partners of the Defendant No.13-partnership firm, and has right to the suit property. The said letters addressed to the defendant nos.14 and 15 are annexed to the plaint at Exhibit S. In the letter addressed to the defendant no.14, the plaintiff had not claimed that the agreement was without his consent and /or forged. The grievance raised in the said letter was that the defendant no.14 had not paid the full consideration in respect of the said property admeasuring 55 acres, which was purchased from J.P.Constructions (Defendant No.13) in the year 1987. The plaintiff had contended that the defendant no.14 had sold the said property to the defendant nos.17 and 18 through the Defendant No.1. who is one of the partners of the defendant no.13 firm. By the said letter, the plaintiff had called upon the defendant no.14 to pay his share and or face legal consequences – Appeal disposed of
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The suit involves disputes over the validity of several agreements for sale of land, alleged to be part of a partnership property, and the rights of the plaintiff as a partner in the firm (!) (!) .
The plaintiff claims that the agreements dated 31.7.1987, 14.11.1988, and 9.5.1995 are illegal, unlawful, and not binding on him, asserting that his signatures were forged and that he was not aware of these agreements until much later (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiff contests the validity of these agreements on the grounds of forgery, lack of consent, and fraud, and seeks declarations that these agreements are void (!) (!) .
The plaintiff asserts that the partnership firm was formed for the development of specific land parcels, and that the property in question was part of the partnership assets, entitling him to a share in the partnership property (!) (!) .
The partnership was allegedly formed for a specific purpose, with a defined duration, and was to be dissolved upon completion of the development or upon certain contingencies such as death or insolvency of partners (!) (!) .
The partnership was considered to have been dissolved upon the death of a partner, with the terms of the partnership deed indicating that the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased would not automatically become partners unless explicitly agreed (!) .
The plaintiff's claim for relief, including a share in the partnership property or profits, is barred by limitation because it was not filed within the prescribed period after the dissolution of the partnership or after the cause of action arose (!) (!) .
The court notes that the suit was filed many years after the alleged agreements and the knowledge of the alleged fraud, making the suit time-barred under the applicable limitation period (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is appropriate when the suit is barred by law or does not disclose a cause of action, and that this can be decided at any stage of the proceedings based solely on the pleadings (!) (!) .
The court concludes that the suit is ex facie barred by limitation and accordingly rejects the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, disposing of the related notices of motion accordingly (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal reasoning and findings from the provided document.
JUDGMENT :
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
1. The Plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs:
(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that alleged Agreement for Sale dt.31.07.1987 executed by the defendant no.1 and late Shri D.C.Mitra in favour of the defendant no.14 company for sale of the portion of the suit property admeasuring about 55 Acres situate at village Kasurwadawali, Ghodbunder Road, Taluka and District Thane is bogus, illegal, unlawful and not binding on the plaintiff;
(b) that the Honourable Court be pleased to declare that alleged Agreement for Sale dated 14.11.1988 executed by the defendant no.1 and late Shri D.C.Mitra in favour of the defendant no.15 Company for sale of the portion of the suit property admeasuring about 45 Acres situated at Village Kasurwadawali, Ghodbunder Road, Taluka and District Thane is illegal, unlawful and not binding on the plaintiff;
(c) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to declared that alleged Agreement for Sale dated 9.5.1995 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant nos.17 and 18 for sale of the portion of the suit property admeasuring about 45 Acres is illegal, unlawful and not binding on the plaintiff;
(d) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th undivided share, right, title and interest in the suit property more particularly described in the schedule annexed hereto being the partners of the Defendant No.13 Partnership firm;
(e) that the Hon'ble court be pleased to declare that the defendant no.13 partnership firm stood dissolved on or about 12.02.2011 when the defendant nos.1 to 12 received the notice issued under section 43 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 issued on behalf of the plaintiff and be pleased to further order and direct the defendants to deliver up 1/5th share of the plaintiff in the suit property more particularly described in the schedule annexed to the plaint by dissolving the partnership for Defendant No.13;
2. The dispute is in respect of two portions of land, one admeasuring 55 Acres 33 Gunthas and the second admeasuring 45 Acres 9 Gunthas situated at Kasarwadavli, District Thane. The entire property, which is more particularly described in the Schedule annexed to the Plaint at Exhibit E, has been referred to as "the suit property".
3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that one Shri Dijendra Chandra Mitra, the predecessor of the defendant nos.2 to 12 entered into an agreement dated 6.9.1965 with one Madhukar Joglekar to purchase a portion of the suit property admeasuring 55 Acres 33 Gunthas. He obtained possession of the said land admeasuring 55 Acres from Madhukar Joglekar. Upon the death of Madhukar Joglekar his successors/heirs executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Dijendra Mehta and authorized him to take possession and do all other acts in relation to the said land.
4. Said Dijendra Mitra was desirous of developing the said portion of land admeasuring 55 Acres 33 Guntas and hence he entered into a partnership with the defendant no.1. Said Dijendra Mitra and the Defendant No.1 agreed to join as partners of the partnership firm M/s. J.P. Constructions (Defendant No.13). Accordingly, a Deed of Partnership dated 10.12.1986 was executed and the land admeasuring 55 Acres 33 Gunthas was brought into the partnership. Under the said partnership deed, Dijendra Mitra was entitled to 30%, whereas defendant no.1 was entitled to 70% share in the profit and loss.
5. Dijendra Mitra and the defendant no.1 entered into another partnership deed dated 24.03.1987, under which the plaintiff was inducted as a partner of defendant no.13- partnership firm. The said partnership was formed for the same purpose i.e. for development of property admeasuring 55 Acres 33 Gunthas. Under the said partnership deed Dijendra Mitra had assured that the agreement dated 6.9.1965 executed in his favour by the previous owner in respect of land admeasuring 55 Acres 33 Gunthas and confirmation executed by the heirs of th
SupremeToday
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
