BINA MURLIDHAR HEMDEV AND ORS. versus KANHAIYALAL LAKRAM HEMDEV AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 14-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BINA MURLIDHAR HEMDEV AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
KANHAIY ALAL LAKRAM HEMDEV AND ORS. 
MAY 14, 1999 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 39 Rule I-Temporary injunction-
Grant of-Respondent denying the right' of appellants/plaintiffs on an 
immovable property on the basis of false release deed-A registered document 
and other evidence prima facies showing respondents recognizing the right C 
of appellants-builder having actual as well as constructive notice of the right 
of appellants-Plea of respondent/builder that he is bonafide purchaser 
without notice-Held, that normally plaintiff who stands by when another is 
making construction· on his property, could not seek injunction to stop 
construction-But in view of the denial of right of the appellants and in view D 
of the fact that respondents did not come forward with some equitable offer 
to safeguard the interests of appellants justified grant of temporary 
injunction-plea of builder of bonafide purchase not permitted in view of the 
fact that the vendor of the builder could not have conveyed more interest 
than he had-Once a notice is there, actual as well as constructive, plea of 
bonafide purchaser without notice is not available. 
E 
Suit:-Maintainability of Suit for dissolution of accounts alongwith 
other relieft-Plea that plaintiff, if not entitled for dissolution or for accounts 
is not entitled for any relief-Held, Plea not permissible. 
Registration Act 1908-Section 17-Registered document-
lnterpolation before registration-A/legation of-By executor-Held, 
allegation not permissible. 
Registered document-Admission of execution-Denial by executor of 
F 
his signature at one place while accepting his other signatures on the G 
document-Held such denial not permissible. 
Partnership Act, 1932 Section 19(1) (g) power of a partner to transfer 
immovable property of the firm-without express power given to him-Held, 
such power must be expressly given to the partner-Otherwise he cannot 
transfer. 
H 
677 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
J group and S group entered into partnership herein (main Firm). J 
group hiving 34% shares entered into sub partnership with L group. "M" 
(whose legal heirs are appellants) was one of the partners of L group vide 
elause 10 of the sub partnership deed "R" of J group was entitled to deal 
with the shares of L group and to manage the affairs of partnership. 
B 
The main firm purchased land for developing and selling and both the 
partners J and S group divided the property vide a registered deed in 1991 
pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding. 
The partition deed between the J group and S group was amended 
C vide a rectification deed (a registered document) by which both the partners 
admitted and recognized the right of L group in the corpus of the property 
allocated by J. At page 3 of the deed one typed line and three hand written 
lines were added, below which initials were put. After the death of "M" "K" 
one of the partners of L group recognized the right.of "M" in the property 
vide letter dated 22.11.93 and J group also admitted the title of L group vide 
D letter dated 3.1.1994. 
Builder obtained 3 separate agreements of sale from S.J. and L groups. 
The agreement with S group specifically referred to deed of rectification a 
registered document, J group in their agreement referred to the rectification 
deed, stating that there were some claims of L group. The agreement of L 
E group ignored the fractional share of "M" stating that the heirs of "M" had 
released their share vide Release Deed dated 27.3.79. The same was denied 
by the appellants. The builder also rep_resented the appellants that he would 
not make any construction on the plots belonging to J group. 
F 
Appellants coming to know that the builder was proposing to make 
construction on the property, filed suit for declaration of title of M's heir, 
dissolution, accounts, partition, damages etc. 
In the trial court, the release deed was accepted a prima facie concocted 
document, since the deed of March 1979 referred to suit of November 1979. 
G Suit was contested. L group supported the builder and J group and S group 
stated that appellants/plaintiffs right was only to a share in profits of sub-
partnership firm and not to the property. 
The appeal a~ainst the interim order was dismissed by High Court. 
H 
In appeal to this court, the builders & J group/the respondents contended 
B.M. HEMDEV v. K.L. HEM

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