M.V. KARUNAKARAN versus KRISHANAN (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1234 · Decided: 15-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

;"'\ 
A 
M.V. KARUNAKARAN 
v. 
KRISHANAN (DEAD) BY LRS. 
\-
DECEMBER 15, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
., 
Partnership Act, 1932: 
s. 29(2) - Right of transferee under heirs of partner of dissolved 
c partnership - partnership of two brothers being co-owners of property 
dissolved due to death of one of them - Heirs of deceased partner transferring 
suit property - Right of transferee in possession to obstruct delivery of 
possession to auction purchaser in execution of decree in a suit for recovery 
of dues against erstwhile partnership - Held, partnership having stood 
D dissolved after death of one partner, his heirs could transfer the property, and 
transferee having been put in possession had right to obstruct delivery of 
.. 
possession to auction purchaser - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 
21, r.97. 
Two brothers being co-owners of certain property formed a partnership. 
E One of them died later and with that the partnership firm stood dissolved. 
Legal heirs of the deceased partner transferred the suit property through a 
sale deed to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Thereafter a third 
party filed a suit for recovery of certain amount against the said partnership 
firm. The vcndee was not a party to the said suit. The suit was decreed and 
F 
the suit property was auctioned in execution of the decree to the appellant, 
who claimed delivery of possession. The vendee under the sale deed obstructed 
thereto and the appellant-auction purchaser filed an application for removal 
of obstruction. The executing court dismissed the application holding tbat 
legal heirs of deceased partner could sell the property and the respondents 
were lawful owner thereof. The appeal of the auction purchaser was dismissed 
G so also was his second appeal. 
In the instant appeal filed by the auction purchaser it was contended on 
his behalf that respondents not being the legal heirs of the dissolved firm 
they did not derive any share and as such they had no right to offer resistance. 
H 
1234 
~ ' 
;-
\'I:
M.V. KARUNAKARAN v. KRISHANAN (DEAD) BY LRS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
1235 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. A distinction exists between the right of a partner to sell a 
property during subsistence of the partnership and the right of an erstwhile 
partner to sell the property of the firm after it stood dissolved. In the instant 
case, the partnership stood dissolved on the death of one partner, whose heirs 
and legal representatives, therefore, could transfer the property at least to B 
\ _,. 
the extent of their own share. (1236-G-HI 
Addanki Narayanappa and Anr. v. Bhaskara Krishnappa (dead) and 
• 
thereafter his heirs and Ors., AIR (1966) SC '1300, referred to . 
1.2. It has been found as of fact by all the three courts below that after c 
purchasing the property from the heirs and legal representatives of the 
deceased partner, the respondents had been put in possession and they had 
been residing therein when the auction sale was effected. They had caused 
some improvements and a new building had also been constructed by them. 
As the suit was filed after the deed of sale was executed and registered, the D 
respondents predecessor, in interest was a necessary party. He was not 
arrayed as a party in the suit. He having been found to be in possession of 
the property as on the date when the delivery of possession of the property 
was sought to be effected, a 'fortiori' he had a right to obstruct thereto. 
11236-H; 1237-A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. l 0588 of 1995. 
E 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated l 0.10.1988 of the High Court 
ofKerala at Emakulam in E.S.A, No. 4of1983. 
B.V. Deepak (NP) for the Appellant. 
F 
C.S. Rajan, Fazlin Anam and E.M.S. Anam for the Respondent. 
S.B. SINHA, J. Auction purchaser is the appellant before us being 
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated· 10.10.1988 
passed by the High Court of Kerala dismissing an appeal preferred by the 
appellant herein. 
G 
Three brothers, Madhavan, Bahuleyan and Karunakaran, were owners 
of the property. Madhavan and Bahuleyan started a partnership under the 
name and style of "The Trustful Daily Banking Company". Madhavan died 
on 26. l 0.1960, leaving behind Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 as his legal heirs and 
H 
representatives. The partnership firm stood dlssolved with his death. The 
I \ 
1236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C:R. 
A legal heirs and repr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.