1992 (6) TMI 186 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of the plaint.
2. Jurisdiction of the court.
3. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
4. Nature of the suit (whether it is a suit for land).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of the plaint:
The plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned Interlocutory Judge. The original suit sought a declaration of dissolution of the partnership business, winding up, accounts and inquiries, injunctions, and appointment of a receiver. The plaintiff later applied for the amendment to specify the addresses of the three projects undertaken by the partnership, which were initially mentioned without specific addresses. The court found that the amendments sought merely provided further particulars of already stated facts and did not change the nature and character of the original plaint.

2. Jurisdiction of the court:
The appellant contended that the amendments transformed the suit into one for land situated outside the jurisdiction of the court. However, the court held that the primary object of the suit was for dissolution and accounts of the partnership, and any relief regarding the assets was incidental. The court cited precedents to support that a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts is not a suit for land, even if the assets include immovable properties outside the court's jurisdiction.

3. Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:
The appellant argued that the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court found no allegations in the plaint suggesting a benami transaction, as required under the Act. It was noted that under the Partnership Act, a partnership can acquire assets in the name of partners, and such acquisitions are not considered benami transactions. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act does not prohibit enforcement of trusts, and partners hold property in a fiduciary capacity for the partnership.

4. Nature of the suit (whether it is a suit for land):
The court reiterated that the suit's primary objective was for dissolution and accounts of the partnership, not for land. The incidental relief sought regarding the partnership's assets did not alter the suit's nature. The court dismissed the appellant's contention that the suit became one for land due to the amendments. It was emphasized that the jurisdiction of the court does not depend on whether the property is admitted or disputed as belonging to the partnership.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the appellant's contentions. The court upheld the amendments to the plaint, maintaining that the suit remained one for dissolution and accounts of the partnership, not for land. The application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act was found inapplicable, and the jurisdiction of the court was affirmed. The court also directed that the application for the appointment of a receiver would be heard and disposed of by the trial court. The appeal was dismissed with costs assessed at 700 Gms, to be paid within a fortnight from the date of service of the signed copy of the judgment.