Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1945 (7) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o. 2 and his brother, who has since died, representing their respective joint families entered into an agreement to carry on business in partnership. There is no dispute that the shares of the Plaintiffs were half, and the shares of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 were 6/16th, and that of the Defendant No. 8 was 2/16th. This partnership business was carried on at the premises erected on a plot of land which had been acquired by Defendant No. 2. The Plaintiffs' case is that at the time the partnership agreement was entered into, it was also agreed that the plot of land should be treated as partnership property and regarded as the Defendants' contribution towards the capital of the business. The Plaintiffs' case further is that certain .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e funds of the partnership, and therefore, they formed part of the partnership properties, so that the Plaintiffs had a half-share in those structures. The trial Court also held that the Defendants, being tenants, were estopped from denying the Plaintiffs' title as long as they did not give up possession of the properties. Accordingly, the trial Court passed a decree declaring the Plaintiffs' title to the land during the period in which the present possession of Defendant No. 2 and the heirs of his deceased brother would continue, and declaring the Plaintiffs' title to the structures and directing delivery of possession and payment of Rs. 250 for arrears of rent. 3. An appeal was taken from this decision of the Subordinate Judge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ship is defined as the relation which subsists between persons who agree to combine their property, labour or skill for some business and to share the profits thereof between them. Sec. 253 of the same Act provides, amongst other things, that all partners are joint owners of all properties originally brought into the partnership stock, or bought with money belonging to the partnership or acquired for purposes of the partnership business. The last-mentioned section corresponds to sec. 14 of the Indian Partnership Act which is now in force. Then sec. 265 of the Contract Act which is replaced by sec. 46 of the Partnership Act entitles the partners, on dissolution, to have the surplus assets distributed amongst themselves according to their res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ontained in those sections the properties become the properties' of the firm. This result, in our view, is not prohibited by any provision in the Transfer of Property Act or the Indian Registration Act. In England similar questions have arisen with reference to the Statute of Frauds and there also it has been held that it is competent for the partners by agreement amongst themselves to convert that which was the separate property of an individual partner into partnership property and that neither a deed nor even a writing is absolutely necessary, (see Lindley on Partnership, 10th Edition, page 410). 5. In our view, having regard to the facts of this case as found by the Courts below, both the land and the structures thereon became partn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e tenant. This estoppel continues until the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases and even after the termination of that relationship until the possession obtained by the tenant is delivered back to the landlord. The present suit as framed, however, is much wider in its scope. It seeks for a declaration of title as co-owner and for joint possession with the other co-owners. In these circumstances we are inclined to agree with the learned District Judge that the plea of estoppel was not available against the Defendants in so far as the suit was in the nature of a declaratory suit. In view of the conclusion we have arrived at on the first question, however, this question need not be discussed at any greater length. 7. The result, in our .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates