Back
B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
S. Shivraj Reddy (Died) through his LRs. – Appellant
Versus
S. Raghuraj Reddy – Respondent
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is preferred for assailing the judgment dated 27th March, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby the learned Division Bench allowed LPA No. 47 of 2002 preferred by respondent No. 1-plaintiff.
3. The status and rank of the parties to the lis is as below:
Party Name | Position before this Court | Position in O.S. No. 67 of 1999 |
S. Raghuraj Reddy | Respondent No. 1 | Plaintiff |
M/s Shivraj Reddy and Brothers | Appellant No. 6 | Defendant No. 1 |
Late S. Shivraj Reddy | Through his LRs (Appellant No. 1-5) | Defendant No. 2 |
Dhanraj Reddy | Respondent No. 2 | Defendant No. 3 |
B. Narayan Reddy | Respondent No. 3 | Defendant No. 4 |
4. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff, along with defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and deceased M. Balraj Reddy1 [Died in 1984] had constituted a partnership firm-defendant No. 1 namely “M/s Shivraj Reddy and Brothers” (hereinafter being referred to as ‘firm’) on 15th August, 1978 with its primary business being the construction of buildings on a contract basis with respect to the works of the Government and Municipalities.
5. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 67 of 19972 [Initially filed as O.S. No. 3 of 1996 bu
Even if plea of limitation is not set up as a defence, Court has to dismiss suit if it is barred by limitation.
The existence of an arbitration clause is not a ground to reject the plaint as being barred by law.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mutual agreement for partnership dissolution and the significance of partnership deeds in determining the intention of the pa....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dissolution of a partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the reconstitution of the firm are governed by specific prov....
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
