9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Admissibility of recital in Deed of Dissolution regarding partnership property ownership. Analysis: The Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a recital in a Deed of Dissolution stating that a specific plot was partnership property. The case involved partners in a manufacturing company and the purchase of a disputed plot by one partner. The Deed of Dissolution mentioned the plot as partnership property, leading to a dispute when one partner failed to execute a sale deed as per the recital. The trial court dismissed the suit, ruling the deeds inadmissible due to lack of registration. The High Court upheld the decision, stating that unregistered documents affecting non-partnership property were inadmissible. The appellant argued that registration was not required for partnership property and cited legal precedents. The respondent contended that the documents did not prove the plot was partnership property, supported by oral evidence. The High Court found the land was not partnership property based on insufficient evidence. The main issue was whether the recital in the Deed of Dissolution, asserting the plot as partnership property, was admissible without registration. The High Court acknowledged that if the plot was partnership property, registration was unnecessary. Despite one partner purchasing the land, both parties treated it as jointly owned, indicating a partnership interest. The Court emphasized the significance of the recital in the dissolution deed, supported by previous legal proceedings. The appellant's claim of duress in obtaining the documents was rejected earlier, affirming their authenticity. The Court held that once established as partnership property, registration was not mandatory, leading to the decree of the appellant's partition suit. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the lower courts' decisions and decreeing the partition suit in favor of the appellant. The Court emphasized the importance of the recital in the Deed of Dissolution, establishing the disputed plot as partnership property, and ruled that registration was not required for such property. The judgment highlighted the parties' historical treatment of the land as jointly owned, supporting the partnership interest despite initial purchase by one partner.
|
