ADDANKI NARAYANAPPA & ANR. versus BHASKARA KRISHTAPPA AND 13 ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 21-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1966] 3 S.C.R. 
Setty, who was presumably the karra of the Bhaskara family, by 
five members of the Addanki family, who presumably represented 
all the members of the Addanki family. 
Therefore, according 
to the Bhaskara defendants, the plaintiffs had no cause of action. 
Alternatively they contended that the suit was barred by time. 
IR the view which we take it would not be necessary to consider the 
second defence raised by the Addanki family. 
The relevant portion of the karar reads thus : "As 
disputes have arisen in our family regarding partition, 
it is not possible to carry on the business or to make 
investment in future. 
Moreover, you yourself have 
undertaken to discharge some of the debts payable 
by us in the coastal parts in connection with our private 
business. 
Therefore. from this day onwards we have 
closed the joint business. So, from this day onwards, 
we have given up (our) share in the machine etc., and in the 
business, and we have made over the same to you alone 
completely by way of adjustment. You yourself shall carry 
on the business without ourselves having anything to do 
with the profit and loss. Herefor, you have given up to us 
the property forming our Ven~atasubbayya's share which 
you have purchased and delivered possession of the same 
to us even previously. 
In case you want to execute and 
deliver a proper document in respect of the share which 
we have given up to you, we shall at your own expense, 
execute and deliver a document registered." 
This document on its face shows that the partnership business 
had come to an end and that the Addanki family had given up 
their share in the "machine etc., in the business" and had made it 
over to the Bhaskara family. 
It also recites the fact that the 
Addanki family had already received certain property which was 
purchased hy the partnership presumably as that family's share 
in the partnership assets. 
The argument advanced by Mr. Alladi 
Kuppuswami is that since the partnership assets included immo-
vable property and the document records relinquishment by the 
members of the Addanki family of their interest in those assets, 
this document \\as compulsorily registerable under s. 17(1)(c) of the 
Registration Act and that as it was not registered it is inadmissible 
in evidence to prove the dissolution of the partnership as well as 
the settlement of accounts. 
Direct cases upon this point of the courts in India are few 
but before we examine them it would be desirable to advert to the 
provisions of the Partnership Act itself bearing on the interest of 
partners in partnership property. Section 14 provides that subject to 
contract between the partners the property of the firm includes all 
property originally brought into the stock of the firm or acquired 
A 
B 
c 
D· 
F. 
F 
G 
II 
• 
j •
• 
; 
• • 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
NARAYANAPPA v. KRISIITAPPA (Mudholkar, !.) 
4 03 
by the firm for the purposes and in the course of the busi~ess .of 
the firm. Section 15 provides that such property shall ordmanly 
be held and used by the partners exclusively for the purposes of 
the business of the firm. Though that is so a firm has no legal 
existence under the Act and the partnership property will, therefore, 
be deemed to be held by the partners for the business of the part-
nership. Section 29 deals with the rights of a transferee of a 
partner's interest and sub-s. (I) provides that such a transferee 
will not have the same rights as the transferor partner but he 
would be entitled to receive the share of profits of his transferor and 
that he will be bound to accept the account of profits agreed to 
by the partners. Sub-section (2) provides that upon dissolution of 
the firm or upon a transferor-partner ceasing to be a partner the 
transferee would be entitled as against the remaining partners to 
receive the share of the assets of the firm to which his transferor 
was entitled and will also be entitled to an account as from the 
date of dissolution. Section 30 deals with the case of a minor 
admitted to the benefits of partnerships. Such minor is given 
a right to his share of the property of the firm and also a right to 
a share in the profits of the firm as may be agreed upon. But his 
share will be liable for the acts of the firm though he would not be 
personally liable for them. Sub-section (4) however, debars a 
minor from suing the partners for accounts or for his share of the 
property or profits

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.