IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
Mr. P. Gunasekar – Appellant
Versus
Mr. S. Dhanabalan – Respondent
A.S.No.693 of 2023 & Cross Objection No.26 of 2024 & C.M.P.No.29145 of 2024
Decided On : 02-02-2026
JUDGMENT :
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
1. Unsuccessful defendants are before this Court challenging the judgment and decree of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs.1, 25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of release deed dated 30.11.2020 till the filing of the suit and thereafter 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.
2. The parties are referred to by their respective ranks before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The suit property was originally purchased by the defendants and plaintiff jointly on 22.04.2013. Though the property was originally purchased as a vacant site, out of the joint efforts and common funds of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, buildings were constructed and they started a partnership business under the name and style “Stylz Wear”. Later due to misunderstanding, the partnership business was dissolved and the plaintiff was relieved from the partnership firm and Profit and Loss account was also finalized between the partners. While dissolving the partnership, the immovable properties were also taken into account and it has been agreed between the parties that in lieu of the plaintiff’s 1/3 share in the immovable properties, Rs.1,25,00,000/- was agreed to be given by the defendants. Pursuant to the same, a release deed dated 30.11.2020 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. Though in the release deed itself, the defendants agreed to issue a cheque in favour of plaintiff for Rs.62,03,125/- each and Rs.46,875 has to be deducted towards TDS from the payment made by the defendants, the cheques were not received. In the meanwhile, the defendants also issued stop payment. In a nutshell, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the consideration as agreed between the parties in the release deed has not been paid to him by the defendants. Therefore, the release deed itself is non est in law. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money from the defendants.
4. The defendants admits that suit properties were originally purchased by the plaintiff and defendants jointly. It is also admitted that they ran the partnership business in the said premises and they also availed loan by mortgaging the property with the Bank. It is the contention of the defendants that subsequently they also purchased 43 and 50 cents from the firm's income and construction was also put up from the firm's income. According to the defendants, there was misunderstanding between the parties and hence the plaintiff retired from the partnership firm on the following terms:
“i) That defendants being continuing partners shall own the properties purchased and building constructed in suit property along with the property purchased in the name of 2nd respondent/defendant.
ii) The properties purchased by the firm in the name of plaintiff and his wife shall be retained by them.
iii) The plaintiff shall settle sum of Rs.1,51,30,000/-towards his Debt share for the CC & PCL Loan due payable by the firm to the banker in lieu of redeeming the mortgage created in the property of plaintiff’s wife Nithya;
iv) Likely defendants sold knitting unit of M/s.Stylz Wear to plaintiff in consideration of plaintiff taking over term loan of Rs.1,51,29,888/- standing due under the loan account of the firm vide loan account No.0492TL0100000170. The said agreement for sale of plant and machinery of knitting unit of the firm was reduced to writing under agreement dated 28.11.2020. The said original was retained by the plaintiff and hence the photocopy of the said agreement dated 28.11.2020 is produced herewith as document no.1.
v. Further it was agreed that the plaintiff shall close EPCG (Export Promotion Capital Goods) obtained for Knitting machinery by complying corresponding export obligation to fulfil the value of Rs.5,65,00,000/- the same was recited in the partnership retirement deed dated 30.11.2020. The said partnership re
Defendants cannot assert counter claims in a recovery suit without proper pleading. Specific obligations tied to individual agreements must be litigated separately if not included in the primary matt....
The court established that a release deed concerning partnership interests does not affect ownership rights in property purchased in individual names, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to a 1/3rd....
The plaintiff was entitled to recover payments owed under agreements, affirming that individual rights supersede partnership firm status and that jurisdictional dismissal was erroneous.
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.
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 court affirmed the validity of a Release Deed executed by a legal heir, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on the party disputing its execution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.