Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Dr. Vijayakumar Rau - Plaintiff
Versus
Dr. B. Manohar Rama Rau & Another - Defendants
C.S. No. 912 of 2004
Decided On : 26-08-2020
For the Plaintiff :M.K. Kabir, Senior Counsel, A. Dhiraviyanathan, Advocate.
For the Defendants :Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, Ravi for M/s. Gupta & Ravi, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit schedule property, originally a joint family property, was not brought into the stocks of the partnership firm, and therefore, liable for partition.
Headnote:
Partition - Indian Partnership Act - Sections 46, 48 - The court decreed the suit in part, passing a preliminary decree to divide the immovable property into three equal shares, and directing the first defendant to render accounts relating to the affairs of the firm from 06.01.2003 till date.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for partitioning the suit schedule property and calling for accounts of the partnership firm, 'Rama Rau Poly Clinic'. The plaintiff and the defendants are brothers and sisters born to one Late Dr. B. Rama Rau and Late Smt. Sumathi Rama Rau. The property was originally purchased by Dr.P.Rama Rau, the grandfather of the parties. The property was used for the business of the partnership firm, but the entire property was not brought into the stocks of the partnership firm.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit schedule property is liable for partition and the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to 1/3rd share each. The court also directed the first defendant to render accounts of the firm from 06.01.2003 till date.
Issues: The issues framed by the court included the entitlement to partition and separate possession of 4/9th share in the suit property, liability to render true and proper accounts from 10.04.1972 onwards, settlement of accounts under Sections 46 and 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, entitlement to divide assets including the immovable properties, maintainability of the suit, entitlement to continue the partnership business, and the reliefs the parties are entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit schedule property was originally a joint family property and was used only for the purpose of the partnership business. The court also found that the property was not brought into the stocks of the partnership firm. The court relied on the evidence and the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in part, and a preliminary decree was passed to divide the immovable property into three equal shares, and to direct the first defendant to render accounts relating to the affairs of the firm from 06.01.2003 till date.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer : Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 and XXIV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 and Order IV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to pass a judgment and decree to :
i. partition the suit schedule property at 829 (Old No.453), Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010 by metes and bounds and allot to the plaintiff his 4/9th share in the same.
ii. appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the assets including the immovable property by metes and bounds and allot to each sharers their respective shares.
iii. direct the 1st defendant to render true and proper account of all the income and expenditure of the partnership firm, “Rama Rau Poly Clinic” for the period 01.04.2002 to till date of decree.
iv. direct the settlement of accounts of the firm in terms of Sections 46 and 48 of the Indian Partnership Act read with the terms of the partnership deed for the period 01.04.2002 to 12.06.2004 and upon ascertainment of the amount payable to plaintiff direct the first defendant to pay the same.
v. pay the costs
This Civil Suit has been laid for
i. partitioning the suit schedule property at 829 (Old No.453), Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010 by metes and bounds and allot to the plaintiff his 4/9th share in the same.
ii. appointing an Advocate Commissioner to divide the assets including the immovable property by metes and bounds and allotting to each sharers their respective shares.
iii. directing the 1st defendant to render true and proper accounts of all the income and expenditure of the partnership firm, “Rama Rau Poly Clinic” for the period 01.04.2002 till the date of decree.
iv. directing the settlement of accounts of the firm in terms of Sections 46 and 48 of the Indian Partnership Act read with the terms of the partnership deed for the period 01.04.2002 to 12.06.2004 and upon ascertainment of the amount payable to plaintiff, directing the 1st defendant to pay the same.
v. costs
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1. The plaintiff and the defendants are brothers and sisters born to one Late Dr. B. Rama Rau and Late Smt. Sumathi Rama Rau.
2.2. The property at No.829 (Old No.453), Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010, was originally purchased by one Late Dr. P. Rama Rau, father of Dr. B. Rama Rau, by sale deed dated 16.12.1937. The said Dr. P. Rama Rau had three children, viz., Dr.B.Rama Rau (father of the parties herein), Dr. Madhava Rama Rau, and Smt. Malathy Sripathy Rau. He established a nursing home in the said property. Originally, Dr. P. Rama Rau was in possession and enjoyment of the property till his death on 11.05.1956. He died intestate. His estate was succeeded by his wife and three children. The daughter of the said Dr. P. Rama Rau, viz., Smt. Malathy Sripathy Rau, severed her interest from the family after obtaining her 1/4th share by way of registered partition deed dated 25.01.1961. The other members continued as members of the joint family in respect of the remaining 3/4th share of the property.
2.3. Thereafter, by a partition deed dated 16.05.1962, an extent of 20 grounds 961 sq.ft. was allotted to Dr.B.Rama Rau, on condition that he pays a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to his mother and brother as owelty. On such payment, Dr.B.Rama Rau became the absolute owner of the property. He continued the nursing home established by his father in the name and style of “Rama Rau Poly Clinic”. On 10.04.1972, Dr.B.Rama Rau, the father of the parties, constituted a partnership, inducting the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as partners in the nursing home, along with him. In the above partnership deed dated 10.04.1972 (Ex.P4), it is admitted that Dr.B.Rama Rau effected a partition on 31.03.1972 dividing the capital of the nursing home into three equal shares. Thereafter, a supplementary deed of partnership was entered into on 01.04.1992 and a further agreement was also drawn on 01.07.2001.
2.4. Thereafter, by a deed of partial partition dated 23.01.1980 (E
