GANGADHAR MADHA VRAO BIDWAI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus HANMANTRAO VYANKATRAO MUNGALE

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 07-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GANGADHAR MADHA VRAO BIDWAI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
HANMANTRAO VY ANKA TRAO MUNGALE 
DECEMBER 7, 1994 
[R.M. SAHAI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Partnership Act/Partition Act: Partition of partnership-Recitals in 
deed of dissolution to the effect that certain property was partnership 
property-Dissolution deed not registered-Whether could be admissible in 
evidence-Held: Yes. 
Both the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent were 
partners in a partnership formed in 1952 which lasted till 1959. In 1955 
B 
c 
the plot in dispute was purchased by the defendant. At the time of 
dissolution two Partnership Deeds were executed. In the schedule 
appended to the Partition Deed it was mentioned that the said property 
together with the structure standing thereon, the well and the motor D 
fixed on the said well would be treated as joint or r.ommon property. 
The appellant issued notice for execution of the sale deed. But when 
the defendant neglected to do so the appellant filed a suit for partition 
by metes and bounds. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The 
two Deeds of Dissolution of partnership were held inadmissible for E 
want of registration. The order was upheld by the High Court. Hence 
this appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court · 
HELD: 1.1. It was found by the High Court and could not be F 
disputed by the respondent that if the plot in dispute was held to be a 
partnership property then it did not require registration. It is true that 
this plot was purchased in 1955 by the respondent alone, but he was not 
precluded in law from bringing it in 
the partnership. The 
circumstances and the three documents indicate that even though the G 
land was purchased by the respondent, it appears both the parties have 
been treating this property as being joint ownership of both. This may 
have been due to relations which existed between them prior to 1959 
but there appears no reason to discard the recital in these documents 
which unequivocally establish that the property at the time of 
dissolution was owned by the partnership. (368 C, DJ 
H 
365 
A 
B 
c 
D 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
1.2. The recital in the Deed of Dissolution of partnership of 
September 1961 that it was a partnership property, could not be 
ignored. Apart from it, the appellant had filed earlier suit in which the 
claim of the appellant that these documents were obtained under 
duress was not accepted. Even though the suit was dismissed on ground 
of limitation, the genuineness of the documents was not doubted. If that 
be so, then the recital in the Dissolution Deed could not be ignored. The 
High Court was not justified in recording the finding that recital in the 
Deed did not carry out the intention of executants. The suit for 
partition is liable to be decreed. (368 E, F] 
S. V. Chandra Pandian and Ors., v. S. V. Si'valinga Nadar and Ors., 
(1993) 1 sec 589, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 900 of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.79 of the Bombay High 
Court in F.A. No. 12of1971. 
A.K. Sen and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Appellant. 
V.M. Tharkunde, M.D. Adkar, R.K. Misra, Ejaz Maqbool and K.K. 
Gogna for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
H 
R.M. SABAi, J. The only question that arises for consideration is 
whether the recital in a Deed of Dissolution of partnership. Ext. 48, that 
Survey Plot No. 699 was a partnership property was admissible in evidence. 
Both the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent were partners in 
Messers Maharashtra Metal Manufacturing Company. The partnership was 
formed in 1952 and it lasted till 1959. In 1955 the plot in dispute was 
purchased by the defendant. At the time of dissoltion a partition Deed, Ext. 
46, was executed. A Deed of Dissolution, Ext. 47, was executed on !St 
August, 1961 and another Deed., Ext. 48, was executed on l st Septelnber, 
1961. In all these Deeds, this plot was mentioned. In the last Deed the 
recital read as under!:-
"We both have been carrying on the business of making and 
selling Iotas (a) of copper in partnership for a long time in the 
name of "Messers Maharashtra Metal Manufacturing 
G. M. BIDWAI (DEAD) v. H. V. MUNGALE [R.M. SAHAI, J.] 
367 
Company" Pune. We have duly recorded the deed of A 
dissolution of partnership on the date 1-9-1961. There were 
factories running at two places and belonging to ·the our 
partnership. Similarly there is a plot bearing Survey N

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