S. P. MISRA & ORS. versus MOHD. LAIQUDDIN KHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 18-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
497
S. P. MISRA & ORS.
v.
MOHD. LAIQUDDIN KHAN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3311 of 2015)
OCTOBER 18, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – s.42(c) – Predecessor-in-
interest of the appellants and that of the respondents entered into
partnership for carrying on business in real estate, by developing
the land which formed part of Paigah Compound – Predecessor-
in-interest of the respondents is the owner of open land with
structures situated in Paigah Compound bearing no.156-159 ad-
measuring 22,253 sq. mtrs. approx. – Predecessor of the appellants
filed suit – Major portion of the land was developed– Dispute to an
extent of 3381 sq. mtrs., claimed by the plaintiff, forming part of
Property No.156-159 of Paigah Compound – Suit decreed –
Predecessor of the appellants and the respondents died – Appellants
filed Execution Petition before the Trial Court – In the Execution
Petition, respondents filed application u/s.47, CPC, 1908 – Allowed
– Challenged by the respondents – Allowed by the High Court – On
appeal, held: Reliefs sought in execution petition are going beyond
the scope of the decree – Executing Court cannot travel beyond the
decree – In the present case, there were only two partners, the
partnership itself stand dissolved, in view of death of a partner –
Once the partnership comes to an end, by virtue of death of one of
the partners, there will not be any partnership existing in which
legal representatives of late respondents could be taken in – Decree
obtained by late predecessor of the appellants against late
predecessor of the respondents, in pursuance of the partnership
deed, cannot bind the legal representatives of late respondents, as
such, the decree is not executable against them – When such legal
representatives are not parties to the contract, such contract cannot
confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any third
party, except parties to it – Executable decree depend on the rights
litigated by the parties – Original decree was obtained against the
predecessor of the respondents, who was party to partnership deed–
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 497
497
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
Thus, when the partnership stands dissolved statutorily, by operation
of law, in view of provision u/s. 42(c) of the 1932 Act, the question
of execution in pursuance of the decree does not arise – No error
committed by the High Court by dismissing the Civil Revision Petition
filed by the appellants – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.47.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 In the case on hand, as much as there were
only two partners, the partnership itself stand dissolved, in view
of death of a partner. It is true that as per the deed of partnership,
the partners have agreed, in the event of death of either party,
their respective legal representatives shall automatically become
partners in the partnership firm and they shall continue to act as
partners of the firm, till the venture envisaged under said
partnership is completed and such legal representatives who
become partners shall have the same rights and shall be subject
to same liabilities and responsibilities, as the deceased partner.
Once the partnership comes to an end, by virtue of death of one
of the partners, there will not be any partnership existing in which
legal representatives of late predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents could be taken in. The judgment and decree obtained
by late predecessor-in-interest of the appellants against late
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, in pursuance of
partnership deed dated 14.04.82, cannot bind the legal
representatives of late predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents, as such, decree is not executable against them. The
legal representatives of late predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents are not the partners of the original partnership deed
dated 14.04.82. When such legal representative are not parties
to the contract, such contract cannot confer rights or impose
obligations arising under it on any third party, except parties to
it. No one but the parties to the contract can be entitled under it
or born by it. Such principle is known as ‘Privity of Contract’.
When the partnership stands dissolved by operation of law under
Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the question of
execution in pursuance of the decree does not arise. There cannot
be any contract unilaterally without acceptance and agreement

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