LexRAMAGYA PRASAD GUPTA & ORS. versus MURLI PRASAD & ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A • 8 ·C 0 E F G "-. H 915 RAMAGYA PRASAD GUPTA 8f OR~. v. MURLl PRASAD & ORS . April 11, 1974 [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY; H. R: KHANNA AND p, K. GosWAMI, JJ.] li1dia11 Electricity Act-1910 read with the Indian Contract A.er-Whether 1no11tY ndvanced by partners in pursuance of an agree111ent whicli subsequenlly beco111ts l'Ofd is recoi•erable. One M obtained a licence for electrification of the Chapra town. Later the licence was assigned to J and thereafter ·to the Chapra Electric Supply Co.· Ltd; which went into voluntary liquidation in 1944. Thereafter, .5 penons entered into an oral agreement of partnership to buy the undertaking and .. their respective ~hares were :- A 8 annas. M 4 annas, P had 2 annas and G &: N had one anua each. lt was also agreed- that the licence will be obtained in the name of Mu alone. 'Thereafter, the Electrical undertaking was sold by the official liquidator on S~pt. 15. 1.944 to Mu. Each partner contributed in pro· portion to their respective shares in the partnership and the total purchase price was paid in 3 instalments. Before the last instalment was paid, the oral agrce-- ment entered into between the partners was incorporated into a partnership deed executed on July 10, 1945 and registered under the Indian Registration .t\ct. Thereafter; A advanced some money to buy some new plant and machinery and when Mu. and another sold one anna share each out of their i-espective shares. Thus the share of A. increased to 10 annas. while that of Resp. I & P reduced to 3 annas ·and one anna respectively. 1"hereafter, the partners contributed the amount in accordance with their respective shares and a second deed was executed to ·this effect on Aua-. 31. 1950. After the registration of the second partnership, the Electrical Inspector, Government of Bihar addressed a letter to Resp. I in \Vhich be stated that the partnership was illegal and void as it contravened the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and that, therefore, the Government did not recognise the partnership. Thereafter. one of the partners filed a suit for a declaration that the partnership had been dissolved by service of notice .on the partners and for rendition of accounts. During the pendency of the suit, however, the Govern- ment of Bihar acting under S. 4(1) of the Indian Electrictiy Act, 1910 revoked the licence. to Resp. I with the result that according to S. S(l)(a) of the Act, all powers and .liabilities Of the licensees stood determined. A recti\ler W3.S" appointed who took over the electrical concern from Resp. I and R. . After th« receh.•er had taken possesslon, 1he Government decided to. purchase the under· taking and deposited a sum of 3 lakhs in the Court as part of purchase money payaQle to the owners of the undertaking. Resp., I thereafter, filed a suit for a declaration that he. being- the sole ·licensee was the exclusive owner of the undertaking and as such. he was entitled to receive the entire price paid or pay- able bv the Government. He also averred that he alon~ paid the entire purcha~e money and others are only his employees. The· trial Court dismissed Resp. l's Title Suit but :the Hi~h .Court reversed lhe trial Court's judgment and decree by granting a declaration that Resp. .I wa."! entitled to the entire money deposited by the State; because the partne~hip wa!I i11e.~a1 and void. Before this Court two questions arose for decision :- \!) Whether because of dismissal of C.A. No. 1711/67 and 1985/68 which arose out ot the 1"itle Suit No. 68/54, the present two appeals are barred on the ground of res-iudicata and (2) Whether Resp. I was entitled to the entire mpney. Allowing the appeals, · HELD. (1) 'the doctrine of res-judicata applies where a suit has been tried and finally decided on the merits, if the defeated party wishes in another suit 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS L1974] 3 S.C.R, between the same parties, relating to the ~e property, to re-agitate the same t,1uestion~. he cannot be allowed to do so because his cause of action has passed into a iudgment and the matter has become res-iudicata. The test is "whether the judge has applied his mind to tf1e decision of the issue involved in the two 1iuits twice or whether there bas been in reality but one trial, one finding and one derisio~." [922 D-Fj Jn the instant case, whatever may have been the common issues between the · two suits, one issue which is not common otud makes the sub
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.