9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the market. 2. Entitlement to damages. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Ownership of the Market: The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, brought a suit against an erstwhile partner for a permanent injunction and damages. The property in question, known as "Vikam Chand Market," was initially a joint family property of the Bagri family. A partition suit in 1959 led to a resale order where the defendant, lacking funds, formed a partnership with three other individuals who provided the necessary funds. The partnership was formalized on 15th September 1989, and the defendant's share was valued at 20% based on his capital contribution. The plaintiff claimed ownership by virtue of the partnership deed. Despite the defendant's contention that the partnership deed was a sham and the deed of retirement was coerced, the court found the partnership deed valid and lawful. The court noted that the defendant did not challenge the deed's validity through a counterclaim. The partnership was acted upon, evidenced by bank accounts, income tax returns, and affidavits. The court held that the property was brought into the partnership's assets, making the plaintiff the owner. The court cited Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, which states that property acquired with the firm's money is deemed to have been acquired for the firm. The court also referenced precedents that no written or registered document is necessary for an individual to contribute immovable property to a partnership. Thus, the court decided the issue of ownership in favor of the plaintiff. 2. Entitlement to Damages: The plaintiff sought damages of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- due to the defendant's alleged interference, which led to tenants not paying rent. The court found that while the defendant's actions constituted a denial of the plaintiff's exclusive right to enjoyment and possession, the plaintiff did not make a prima facie case for damages. The court noted that the plaintiff could recover rents through appropriate legal proceedings against the tenants. The court rejected the relief for damages due to inconsistent and contradictory evidence presented by the plaintiff. Conclusion: The court granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction, confirming their ownership and exclusive right to manage the property without interference. The plaintiff was awarded costs of the suit, but the claim for damages was denied. The interim order was confirmed, and any appointed receiver was discharged.
|
