Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.
Salma Asgarali Makati – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Raj Bucket Factory – Respondent
Appeal From Order Nos. 30, 31 of 2022
Decided On : 25-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mukul S. Kulkarni
For the Respondents: S.V. Natu, Mangesh G. Patil, Girish Rane, P.N. Kalani, C.K. Shinde
Properties purchased with partnership funds are owned by the partnership, necessitating a full trial to resolve ownership disputes.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 - Temporary injunction - Appeals against the order restraining defendants from transferring or encumbering suit properties - Plaintiffs claimed ownership over lands and sought injunction against defendants - Court found prima facie evidence indicating properties were purchased using partnership funds, thus restraining defendants from creating third-party interests. (Paras 3, 10, 14, 15)
(B) Partnership Law - Ownership of property - The court emphasized that properties purchased with partnership funds are owned by the partnership, not individual partners, and the necessity of a full trial to clarify ownership. (Paras 4, 14)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs claimed ownership of specific lands, asserting they were purchased by a partnership firm using partnership funds, while defendants contended the properties were individually owned. The trial court granted a temporary injunction against the defendants.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order to restrain defendants from transferring the properties was upheld, indicating prima facie evidence of partnership ownership.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suit properties belonged to the partnership firm or the individual defendants and the validity of the temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that properties purchased with partnership funds are owned by the partnership, and a full trial is necessary to resolve ownership disputes.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.
1. Heard. ADMIT.
2. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 01.09.2021 below Exhibit 6 in Special Civil Suit No. 14/2019 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’). The Appeal From Order bearing No. 30/2022 is filed by the Original Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9(i) and 9(ii) whilst Appeal From Order No. 31/2022 is filed by the Original Defendant No. 6 in the aforesaid Suit. The parties have referred as per their status in the original suit for avoiding the ambiguity. Since both these appeals are filed against one and the same order, they are taken for disposal by a common judgment.
3. The Plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit have claimed declaration of their ownership over the lands bearing Gat Nos. 76, 80, 81, 82, 134, 135, 136/1 and 136/2 situated at village Bamrud, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit properties’). The plaintiffs are also claimed declaration in respect of the Sale-Deeds dated 18.08.2008, 29.04.2013, 08.12.2014, Agreement to Sale dated 29.09.2010 and the Rent Farming Agreement dated 24.05.2004 as the same are null and void and not binding upon them. They further claimed possession of the suit properties and recovery of arrears of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,96,55,419/- along with the interest @ 18% per annum from Defendant no. 5 and also for mesne profits from Defendant nos.1 to 7. They also claimed perpetual injunction restraining Defendant nos. 1 to 7 from creating third party interest or making any construction on the suit properties. The Plaintiffs had, thus, filed the aforesaid Application Exhibit 6 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant nos. 1 to 7 from creating third party interest and restraining Defendant nos.5 to 7 from changing the nature of the suit properties and restraining Defendant no. 2 from disturbing possession of Plaintiffs over the farm house located on the suit properties.
4. The plaintiffs are claiming that deceased Samsuddin Essofaly Pachorawala along with Defendant nos.2 and 3 formed partnership vide indenture of partnership dated 28.04.1969. Though the plaintiff was minor at that time, he was admitted to the benefits of said Firm. The aforesaid suit properties were purchased by the plaintiff Firm through its Founder Partner Samsuddin in the individual names of his respective family members, but by utilizing funds of Partnership Firm. Thereafter, around 1980, the plaintiffs erected huge sheds for storage of crops and cattle etc. on the suit properties and also carried out development in respect of the same. After retirement of Defendant no. 2 from the said Firm, his name was deleted from land records of Gat No. 76 and 81 and name of Defendant no. 4 was entered in his place for convenience. Defendant no. 3 was expelled from the Firm in 1991-92, and accordingly, his name was deleted from the record of Gat No. 82. The Defendant no. 5 was appointed as a Care Taker of the suit properties on behalf of the Firm. The Firm purchased a property at Valsad, Gujrat in the year 1974-75 and expanded its business in the name and style as M/s Raj Sheet Metal Engineering Works. This property and business was given to Defendant no. 2 as his share in the Plaintiff Firm.
5. The Plaintiff Firm then was reconstituted on 26.05.1978 and specific shares were allotted to deceased Samsuddin, Defendant no. 3 and Plaintiff no. 2 each as per the Partnership Deed dated 26.05.1978. Defendant no. 3 acted contrary to the interest of Firm and therefore, Samsuddin and Plaintiff no. 2 purchased his share in the Firm and the said partnership was determined. Under Partnership Deed dated 20.09.1991, the Firm was again reconstituted and shares were allotted in specific manner to Deceased Samsuddin, Plaintiff no. 2 and two minor sons of Plaintiff no. 2. The said Firm had taken over all the assets and liabilities of outgoing partners. Thereafter, from
