9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rily, by operation of law, in view of provision under Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. When the respondents are not parties to the partnership firm, they are not bound by the decree obtained by the predecessor of the appellant. More so, when it is a case of the respondents that they have not derived any assets and liabilities arising out of the partnership firm, decree obtained by the original plaintiff is not executable against the respondents. The respondents were not parties to the partnership deed and that the partnership stands dissolved, in view of death of one of the partners, the respondents have not derived the benefit of assets of the partnership firm, the decree obtained by the predecessor of the appellants, is not executable against the respondents herein. The Trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 47 of C.P.C. and there is no error committed by the High Court, in confirming such order by dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellants herein - Appeal dismissed. - CIVIL APPEAL NO.3311 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2019 - INDU MALHOTRA AND R. SUBHASH REDDY JJ. For Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the persons claiming through the defendant from preventing the plaintiff from carrying out the work of preparing layout plan, developing the property and sale thereof, in an extent of 3,381 square meters; 2. to grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant to sign the layout and other documents submitting to the Cantonment Board for sanction in respect of the land admeasuring 3,381 square meteres forming part of Paigah Colony situated at S.P. Road, Secunderabad, and for costs. 5. The said Suit was decreed on 14.07.1993, by the Trial Court, granting the following reliefs: 1. the defendant and all the persons claiming through the defendant be and that are hereby permanently restrained from carrying the work of developing the property and sale thereof in respect of the suit schedule property; 2. the defendant is hereby directed to sign the layout plan and other documents for submitting to the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad for sanction in respect of the suit schedule property; 3. Each party shall bear their own costs. 6. After death of the original plaintiff, the legal heirs of the plaintiffs have filed Executi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s partners of the firm till the venture envisaged under partnership is completed and such legal representatives, who become partners, shall have same rights and shall be subject to same liabilities and responsibilities, as the deceased partner. The relevant clauses of the partnership deed dated 14. 04.1982, read as under: This partnership shall not be dissolved till the completion of the venture except by mutual agreement reduced in writing. The parties hereby expressly and specifically agree that in the event of death of either party their respective legal representatives shall automatically become partners in the partnership firm and they shall continue to act as partners of the firm till the venture envisaged under this partnership is completed and such legal representatives who become partners shall have the same rights and shall be subject to the same liabilities and responsibilities as the deceased partner. 10. By referring to the contents of the partnership deed, it is contended by Sri. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the decree obtained by the predecessor of the appellants is executable and against the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond the scope of the decree. It is fairly well-settled that, the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree. The only question which fell for consideration before the Trial Court in E.A. No. 6 of 2005, was whether the decree obtained by the predecessor of the appellants, can be executed against the appellants or not. Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932, deals with the situations of dissolution of partnership, on happening of certain contingencies. As per the said provision, subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved when: (a) if constituted for a fixed term, by the expiry of that term; (b) if constituted to carry out one or more adventures or undertakings, by the completion thereof; (c) by the death of a partner; and (d) by the adjudication of a partner as an insolvent. 16. In the case on hand, as much as there were only two partners, the partnership itself stand dissolved, in view of death of a partner. 17. It is true that as per the deed of partnership, the partners have agreed, in the event of death of either party, their respective legal representatives shall automatically become partners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property in a registered partnership deed and he was in possession thereof. The defendant, on partition in the family, had been allotted a portion of the land. When there was interference on the suit scheduled property, which fell to the share of plaintiff, as per the registered partnership deed, a suit for permanent injunction was filed. 20. In the aforesaid case, after suffering decree for permanent injunction, judgment-debtor died. When the heirs of the judgment-debtor in violation of the decree for permanent injunction tried to forcibly dispossesess the decree-holder, decree-holder filed the Execution Petition. The Executing Court held that heirs of the judgment-debtor were not bound by the decree. When such order is questioned before the High Court, the Writ Petition is allowed. The High Court held that decree of permanent injunction cannot be enforced against the legal heirs of judgment-debtor, as an injunction does not travel with the land. This Court, by referring to provision under Section 50 of C.P.C. read with Order 21 Rule 32 of C.P.C, has held that such a decree can be executed against the legal representatives. But, at the same time, the paragraph 25 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents that they have not derived any assets and liabilities arising out of the partnership firm, decree obtained by the original plaintiff is not executable against the respondents. 22. It is also to be noticed that during the life time of late Smt. Hashmatunnisa Begum, she also filed Suit in O.S. No. 1061 of 1990 on the file of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for dissolution of partnership firm constituted under deed of partnership dated 26.06.1977 and also for rendition of accounts. It is true that same is a different partnership but, parties are same. In such suit filed by late Smt.Hashmatunnisa Begum, predecessor of the appellants Late Sri Jai Narayan Misra, filed IA No. 1649 of 1997, to dismiss the said suit, claiming that in view of death of one of the partners, during the pendency of the suit, there is no room for third party to be introduced. It was the case of late Sri Jai Narayan Misra that partnership stood dissolved. However, in a similar situation arising out of partnership deed dated 14.04.1982, the appellants claim the decree is executable against the respondents, who are the legal heirs of the judgment-debtor. As much as, we are of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
