Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.HEMALATHA
S.Vaidhyanathan – Appellant
Versus
C.Palaniappan (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. HEMALATHA, J.
The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below has filed the present second appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.129 of 2005 before II Additional Sub Court, Salem, for dissolution of the partnership firm "Hercules Weigh Bridge" and for rendition of accounts of the said firm. He also prayed for 1/8th share in the net assets and profits of the partnership firm.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.
4. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
4.1. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 and one T.K.Kuppusamy (since deceased) entered into a partnership agreement dated 22.02.1984 (Ex.A1) for purchase of a land in Jagirammapalayam Village, Salem. The partnership firm was at will and for the purpose of conducting a business in the name and style of 'Hercules Weigh Bridge'.
4.2. All the partners decided to purchase a property in the name of the first defendant and T.K.Kuppusamy. The fifth defendant contributed a sum of Rs.10,000/- and other partners contributed a sum of Rs.7,200/- per hea
Ownership of property alleged as partnership assets must be proven, and previous suits on the same cause of action bar subsequent suits under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
Review - When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is not maintainable and is inherently defective and no....
The court held that a partner's possession of dissolved firm property does not create ownership rights against co-owners, and claims of adverse possession are not maintainable.
A suit for specific performance cannot be maintained by partners of a dissolved firm; and claims are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and the Limitation Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's valuation of the suit should not be whimsical or arbitrary, especially in cases involving immovable property. The court emphas....
The properties inherited from the grandmother are individual properties, not belonging to the Partnership Firm, as established by the Will and settlement deed.
A suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership and a share in the immovable properties of the partnership is barred by limitation under Article 106 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
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
