Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
M. Devadoss – Appellant
Versus
P. Bhagyalakshmi (Died) – Respondent
Appeal Suit Nos. 79, 80 of 2006
Decided On : 15-11-2022
Partnership Deed - Property Ownership - Dissolution Deed - [Partnership Deed, Dissolution Deed] - The court found that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the Partnership Deed and Dissolution Deed, and that the plaintiff's title could be declared despite the documents not being registered. The court also held that the Dissolution Deed did not require compulsory registration as it did not result in the transfer of property. The court further ruled that the restrictive covenant in the sale deed did not render the Partnership and Dissolution Deeds void. The plaintiff was found to be in possession of the suit property and entitled to the reliefs sought.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of absolute ownership of a property and a permanent injunction against interference by the defendants. The defendants contested the plaintiff's claim, alleging forgery and misuse of signatures. Both suits related to the same property and were taken up for joint trial and were disposed of by a common judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the Partnership Deed and Dissolution Deed, and that the plaintiff's title could be declared despite the documents not being registered. The court also held that the Dissolution Deed did not require compulsory registration as it did not result in the transfer of property. The court further ruled that the restrictive covenant in the sale deed did not render the Partnership and Dissolution Deeds void. The plaintiff was found to be in possession of the suit property and entitled to the reliefs sought.
Issues: The issues included whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, whether the Partnership and Dissolution Deeds were valid, and the possession of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the Partnership and Dissolution Deeds, and that the restrictive covenant in the sale deed did not render the Partnership and Dissolution Deeds void. The court also found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and entitled to the reliefs sought.
Final Decision: The appeal suits were dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff were confirmed. The respondents were awarded costs throughout.
JUDGMENT :
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(A) The Appeal Suits:
1. O.S. No. 12499 of 1996 was filed by one S. Palanisamy (HUF) for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land measuring two grounds 1190 sq. ft. comprised in Survey No. 158 Part, Thiruvanmiyur Village, Besant Nagar Extension Phase I, Plot No. 24 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4, their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
2. One M. Devadass was arrayed as the first defendant and his Power of Attorney Agent one Manoharan was arrayed as the second defendant and the purchasers of the property through the said Power of Attorney namely T. Velayutham and Rathi Tripurasundari were arrayed as defendants 3 and 4 and the District Registrar Madras (North) was arrayed as defendant no. 5 in the said suit.
3. The first defendant in the above suit namely M. Devadoss, third defendant namely Velayutham and the fourth defendant namely Rathi Tripurasundari filed O.S. No. 12509 of 1996 in respect of the same suit property for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs- peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the said suit, one Bhagyalakshmi, S. Palanisamy, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 12499 of 1996 and M/s. Mahalakshmi Builders represented by S.Palanisamy were arrayed as the defendants. Since both suits related to the same property and were claiming cross titles, they were taken up for joint trial and were disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated 27.02.2003, decreeing the suit filed by S. Palanisamy in O.S. No. 12499 of 1996 and dismissing the other suit in O.S. No. 12509 of 1996. Aggrieved by the same, these Appeal Suits in A.S. Nos. 79 and 80 of 2006 are laid before this Court and as such, the same are taken up for disposal by way of this common judgment. The parties are referred to as per their array in O.S. No. 12499 of 1996 to avoid confusion.
(B) The facts of the Case:
4. The case of the plaintiff is that it was in real estate business, the suit property was purchased by the first defendant by a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1990 from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Similarly, one V. Thilagam was the owner of the adjacent plot bearing Plot No. 23. The plaintiff, the first defendant and the said Thilagam, entered into a Partnership Agreement dated 01.04.1991 constituting the Firm in the name and style M/s. Mahalakshmi Constructions, for the purpose of developing the said property. As per the Partnership Deed, the plaintiffs stake was 50% and the plaintiff invested a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- as cash. The stake of the first defendant is 25% and the first defendant brought in the suit property which is valued at Rs. 4,50,000/-. Similarly, the said Thilagam-s stake was 25% and she brought her property, being the adjacent plot, which was also valued at Rs. 4,50,000/-. However, within a short period, it was found that the business could not be continued as such and the parties mutually agreed to dissolve the Firm with effect from 10.07.1991 and accordingly, entered into a Deed of Dissolution of the Partnership. As per the same, the parties divided the assets of the Firm and it was agreed that in respect of their 25% share, the first defendant and the said Thilagam agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- each. They were paid the said sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- by way of cheques in two installments. As a result, the plaintiffs became the absolute owner of both the plot Nos. 23 and 24 and were in possession and enjoyment of the same and a patta was also granted in favour of the plaintiffs on 11.12.1991.
5. While so, during April 1994, the defendants attempted to break open the eastern side compound wall of the suit property and there were mutual police complaints against each other and therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 12499 of 1996 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction.
6. The
AI
The plaintiff's title could be declared despite the Partnership and Dissolution Deeds not being registered, and the restrictive covenant in the sale deed did not render the Partnership and Dissolutio....
Mere admission of signatures in unregistered document not sufficient to prove execution. Possessory rights cannot be established solely based on unregistered agreement without taking steps for regist....
The necessity of concrete proof for the existence of a partnership firm and the requirement for a registered deed of conveyance for the transfer of immovable property.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
The court upheld that a mere sale agreement without a registered deed does not confer title, and continuous possession under such agreement is considered permissive, not adverse.
The burden of proof in a property dispute lies on the person claiming the title, and strict compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act is necessary for the validity of a sale deed and reg....
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
