SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 447

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
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. J. Franklin
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Ponraj

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 matter.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act - General principles regarding agreements between partners - Recovery of money - Suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,25,00,000/- consequent to non-payment as per release deed - Defendants claimed counter obligations but did not plead set off or counter claim - Court held that separate liabilities from partnership cannot be impliedly enforced without proper pleading in the present suit. (Paras 9-14)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff and defendants jointly purchased a property and engaged in a partnership. Following partnership dissolution, a release deed was executed agreeing to pay Rs.1,25,00,000/- for the plaintiff’s share, but payments were not made, leading to suit for recovery.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court decreed payment of Rs.1,25,00,000/- as the defendants failed to demonstrate compliance with agreements regarding partnership liabilities in the current suit context.

Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the agreed sum, and can defendants raise counter claims without proper pleading?

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that since the defendants failed to plead set off or counter claims, they cannot defend the recovery suit based on separate agreements. The original suit concerns only the recovery for the release and not partnership debts.

Result: Appeal and Cross Objection dismissed, trial court decision upheld.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top