Legal heirs of a deceased partner cannot maintain a suit for dissolution of the partnership as it is barred by law of limitation post-partner's death.

JUDGMENT

This application has been filed by the applicants to reject the plaint under order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

2. The brief averments of the application are as follows:

The 1st applicant is the 1st defendant in the main suit and the other applicants are defendants 2 & 3 in the main suit. The respondent plaintiffs have filed the main suit for the relief (i) to dissolve the firm M/s. Sree Lakshmi Timber Mart and to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the said Partnership Firm assets (ii) to declare the sale deed dated 11.09.2023, registered as document No.4109 of 2023, executed by the defendants in favour of the 4th defendant as Null and Void, (iii) for Permanent Injunction, restraining the 4th defendant from putting up new construction in the suit schedule property and (iv) permanent injunction restraining the 5th and 6th defendants from mutating the 4th defendant's name in revenue records pertaining to the suit property.

2.1 The plaint averments show that the plaintiffs claim that the suit property is a partnership property and that, being the legal heirs of the deceased partner Mrs.N.Meera, they claim half share in the suit property. The 1st relief in the plaint is the main relief and all other relieves are consequential relieves and if the 1st prayer in the suit fails, automatically the other relieves cannot be granted. M/s. Sree Lakshmi Timber Mart is an unregistered partnership firm created by an unregistered Partnership Deed dated 01.01.1985 and the said firm purchased the suit scheduled property by sale deed dated 11.09.1987. In the said Partnership Firm, the father of the plaintiff namely Mr.S.Namashivayam, his younger brother Mr.S.Ponnuvelu, father of the applicants and one Mr.Ambigapathy were the partners of the said firm. After the demise of the said S.Namashivayam, on 16.11.1990, his wife Mrs.N.Meera, the mother of the plaintiffs, was brought in as the partner from 11.12.1990. The other partner Mr.Ambigapathy retired from the partnership business on 30.12.1991 and the remaining two partners continued in the partnership business and it is an admitted fact that the said partnership firm got only two partners namely Mr.S.Ponnuvelu and Mrs.N.Meera. Further, there are claims in the plaint that there was a settlement between Mr.S.Ponnuvelu and Mrs.N.Meera and her daughters ( Plaintiffs herein) and an agreement of family arrangement dated 02.04.2007 was entered and as per the said family arrangement Mr.S.Ponnuvelu agreed to pay Rs.75 lakhs as full and final settlement to release and relinquish their rights over the partnership business and its properties. Three post dated cheques were issued by Mr.S.Ponnuvelu an one of the cheques that was presented for payment was dishonoured on 24.09.2007 and the remaining two cheques were not presented, however no suit was filed for enforcement of family arrangement dated 02.02.2007 by M/s.N.Meera.

2.2. According to the plaintiffs, Mr.S.Ponnuvelu has not furnished statement of accounts of the partnership firm to the other partners and since the plaintiffs were minors, they could not question the illegal act of his uncle Mr.S.Ponnuvelu and then the plaintiff has given a police complaint against Mr.S.Ponnuvelu on 14.10.2010. The mother of the plaintiffs namely N.Meera died on 25.07.2016 and by the death of the plaintiff's mother, the partnership was dissolved as per Section 42 (c) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The said Ponnuvelu died interstate on 27.01.2023 and hence the family arrangement dated 02.04.2007 was not acted upon during the lifetime of Mr.S.Ponnuvelu.

2.3. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 3 cannot inherit the assets of the firm including the suit property solely until the affairs of the firm has been completely wound up under Section 53 of the Partnership Ac