Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3042
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
R.S. Sethupathy & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
S.P.G.R. Madhavan (died) & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P.(MD) No.741 of 2025
Decided On : 13-03-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. C. Godwin.
For the Respondents: Mr. J. Barathan, for Mr. C. Gangai Amaran, Ms. G.K. Chitradevi.
Legal heirs of deceased partners not entitled to be impleaded in a dissolution suit if not recognized as partners in the current partnership deed.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 1 Rule 10 - Partnership Act - Dissolution of partnership firm - Third parties sought to be impleaded in a suit for dissolution and accounts - Dismissal of application by trial court challenged - Court found that proposed parties were not partners as per the revised partnership deed dated 08.09.2009, thus not entitled to be impleaded - Legal heirs of deceased partners not inducted into the firm - Dismissal of revision petition upheld. (Paras 4, 16)
(B) Partnership - Legal heirs of deceased partners - Legal heirs of partners who passed away prior to reconstitution of the firm are not entitled to be included in the suit for dissolution of partnership firm as they are not recognized partners under the current partnership deed. (Paras 6, 16)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm and for accounts from 2012-2013. Third parties, claiming to be legal heirs of deceased partners, sought to be impleaded but were dismissed by the trial court. The firm was reconstituted without including these heirs.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the proposed parties were not partners in the firm as per the revised partnership deed and thus had no standing to be included in the suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the legal heirs of deceased partners could be impleaded in the suit for dissolution of the partnership firm.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the proposed parties were not recognized as partners in the current partnership deed, they could not be impleaded in the suit, and any rights they may have must be pursued through independent legal action.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
Third parties to the suit in O.S.No.54 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar, have filed the present civil revision, challenging the dismissal of their application to get themselves impleaded in the suit for dissolution of partnership firm and render true and correct accounts of first defendant partnership firm from 2012-2013.
2. A perusal of the records reveals that the some of the respondents herein have filed the above said suit for the relief of dissolution of partnership firm and render correct of accounts for the partnership firm from the financial year 2012-2013 onwards. Pending suit, the plaintiffs had filed an application in I.A.No.10 of 2023 directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.75 lakhs as interim payment and to adjust the same from the amount due to the respondents. This application came to be allowed, challenging the same, the defendants had filed CRP(MD)No.3379 of 2023. This Court, by an order, dated 22.12.2023, had directed the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- into the trial Court within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and on such deposit being made, the learned trail Judge was directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
3. The plaintiffs had filed CMP(MD)No.17841 of 2024 before this Court, seeking modification of the above said order. This Court, by an order, dated 14.02.2025, was pleased to pass an order permitting the plaintiffs to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount, ie., Rs.20,00,000/-, upon furnishing security for the said amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. This Court has further directed the learned trial Judge to complete the trial and dispose of the suit on or before 23.04.2025 and further the learned trial judge was required to submit monthly reports as previously directed by this Court.
4. In the light of the above said facts, third parties to the suit had filed an application in I.A.No.32 of 2024, seeking to implead themselves in the suit as defendants 4 to 7. This application came to be dismissed by the trial Court, challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, the partnership deed was entered into between the father namely, S.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar and his four sons namely, S.P.G.R. Nithyanantham, S.P.G.R. Selvarajan, S.P.G.R. Subramanian and S.P.G.R. Chandran on 17.08.1959 under the name and style of S.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar & sons. This firm got reconstituted after the death of S.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar on 04.06.1987. The partnership firm got reconstituted with effect from 08.06.1987 in which all the four sons of S.P.G. Ramasamy Nadar were parties.
6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners one of the partner S.P.G.R. Subramanian had passed away on 28.11.2007 and another partner S.P.G.R. Selvarajan had passed away on 07.09.2009. Thereafter, without inducting the legal heirs of the said deceased partners, the other partners have reconstituted the partnership firm with effect from 08.09.2009. As per the reconstituted partnership deed, the partners were S.P.G.R. Nithyanantham, S.P.G.R. Chandran and S.P.G.R. Madhavan.
7. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that though their respective fathers namely S.P.G.R. Subramanian and S.P.G.R. Selvarajan had passed away in the year 2007 and 2009 respectively, their shares were not disbursed to the respective legal heirs. He further contended that without inducting the legal heirs into the partnership firm, the firm is continued by the rest of the partners.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that right from the beginning the partnership firm was treated as joint family business and therefore, on the death of some of the partners, automatically their legal heirs would get induct and they would be entitled to the benef
