9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (1) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Kai Charan defendant 5. 2. The property in suit is a ginning factory and cotton press situate in the town of Hathras. The plaintiff Mt. Basanti Bibi is a married lady living in Bihar in the District of Monghyr. Her plaint asks for the following reliefs: That it may be declared that the plaintiff is the sole owner of 11/4 annas share which belonged to Lal Ram Narain (her father) out of the five annas share of the firm Radha Kishan-Sita Ram and that defendant 9 (one Seth Chiranni Lal) has right to a five pie share appertaining to the share of Ram Narain which was sold to him by defendants 6 to 8, who had purchased it from defendants 4 and 5. 3. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssolved, and the whole of the pre sent claim of the plaintiff is time bar red. As regards this alleged dissolution the facts are that the whole of this factory is owned as a partnership by a large number of persons, we are told, about 30 in number. The five annas share in the factory was owned by the members of the family to whom the father of the plaintiff belonged. The trial Court has assumed that five annas share was a partnership within the partnership which consisted of the factory partners. That is a very peculiar view of law, and we do not consider that such a view is consistent with the definition of partnership in Section 239, Contract Act. The section states: Partnership is the relation which subsists between persons who have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nership business. Further, it is not alleged in any of the pleadings that there is any dissolution of the partnership on the death of a partner. We consider therefore that the trial Court was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the death of Ram Narain caused a dissolution of the partnership. Now the question is what is the correct article to apply to the present suit under the Limitation Act. We are of opinion that the correct article is Article 141, which applies to a suit for possession of an immovable property by a Hindu en-titled to the possession of the immovable property on the death of a Hindu female. The present plaintiff became entitled to possession on the death of her mother Mt. Shib Bai which we find to have taken place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made the necessary enquiry to ascertain that his vendors had power to make the sale-deed to him. Accordingly we hold that Seth Chiraunji Lal is not entitled to the benefit of Section 41, T. P. Act. As a result we set aside the decree of the trial Court and we remand this case for decision on the remaining issues. In regard to limitation it is no doubt possible for these defendants who have received profits which should have come to the heirs of Ram Narain, to plead that Article 62, Lim. Act, will be a bar to the suit of the plaintiff. That however is a matter for the trial Court to determine. But so far as defendant 1 the manager of the factory is concerned, Article 62 would not apply to funds in his hands. Costs here and hitherto incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
