9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plot in dispute was purchased by the defendant. At the time of dissolution a Partition Deed, Ext. 46, was executed. A Deed of Dissolution, Ext. 47, was executed on 1st August, 1961 and another Deed, Ext. 48, was executed on 1st September, 1961. In all these Deeds, this plot was mentioned. In the last Deed the recital read as under: We both have been carrying on the business of making and selling lotas (a) of copper in partnership for a long time in the name of Messers Maharashtra Metal Manufacturing Company Pune. We have duly recorded the deed of dissolution of partnership on the date 1-9-1961. There were factories running at two places and belonging to the our partnership. Similarly there is a plot bearing Survey No. 699 of the owners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged that the law is settled that no registration was required of the partnership property as it did not result in transfer of any interest. Reliance was placed on S.V. Chandra Pandian and Ors. v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar and Ors. MANU/SC/0450/1993 : [1995]212ITR592(SC) . The learned Counsel urged that in any case Section 14 of the Partition Act indicated that any property acquired subsequently becomes partnership property, Sri Tarkunde, the learned senior counsel supported the findings recorded by the High Court. He submitted that the documents, Ext. 46, 47 and 48, did not establish that Plot No. 699 was partnership property. He urged that in Ext. 46 the mala (garden land) and the present suit property had been separately mentioned. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as owned by the partnership. The recital in the Deed of Dissolution of partnership of September, 1961 that it was a partnership property, could not be ignored. Apart form it, the appellant had filed earlier suit in which the claim of the appellant that these documents were obtained under duress was not accepted. Even though the suit was dismissed on ground of limitation, but the genuineness of the documents was not doubted. If that be so, then the recital in the Dissolution Deed could not be ignored. The High Court was in absence of any challenge to Ext. 48 not justified in recording the finding that recital in the Deed did not carry out intention of executants. Sri Sen was correct in submitting that once it was held that Plot No. 699 was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
