SHREEDHAR GOVIND KAMERKAR versus YESAHWANT GOVIND KAMERKAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 12-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
SHREEDHAR GOVIND KAMERKAR 
A 
v. 
YESAHWANT GOVIND KAMERKAR AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 12, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Partnership Act, 1932-Section 14-Property belonging to the firm-
First partner claiming share in tenancy rights of second partner when 
partnership not in existence on the date of acquiring of the said premises by C 
the second partner and no contribution by first partner towards acquisition 
of premises-Held: Premises acquired when partnership not in existence-No 
direct evidence that second partner brought the same as his investment in 
the partnership at the initial stage but it is evident that it was done later-
Also in absence of deed of partnership, it cannot be held that the same had 
been originally brought in the stock of the firm-Agreement not being decisive, D 
conduct of the parties assumes significance-Admission of second partner 
that the royalty received from the tenanted premises was being deposited in 
the partnership account thus, the property formed part of the assets of the 
partnership-Evidence Act, I 872-Section 58. 
The original tenant of the premises died in 1966 leaving behind him E 
the assignors. The business as also the tenanted premises was assigned for 
valuable consideration. Appellant allegedly acquired the tenancy right in 
respect of the suit premises in terms of a deed of assignment Appellant started 
business of DP Store in the said premises. He executed leave and licence 
agreement in relation to the self-same premises in favour of Win 1970. W F 
was running a business in the said premises under the name and style of DP 
Store. Dispute arose between parities. W filed suit which was compromised. 
Appellant, respondent no 1 and one more entered into a partnership in the 
name of MIS Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar. Since appellant claimed full 
ownership in relation to tenanted premises as also in Shree Medicos, the same 
was dissolved in 1977. The deed of dissolution postulated that the said tenancy G 
was a part of the assets of the partnership. Thereafter, appellant obtained 
possession of the premises in 1978. He started a business under the name 
and style of'Shree Medico'. Appellant refused to render accounts and started 
claiming partnership business and partnership premises as his own. 
751 
H 
752 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A Respondent no.1 filed suit claiming 1/3 share in suit business of Medical 
and General Store and also tenancy rights. Though in the suit respondent 
did not claim any relief in respect of the business of DP Store, but at the 
hearing, he claimed business running under the name and style of 'Shree 
Medico' and also interest in 'DP Store'. Trial Judge dismissed the suit. Single 
B Judge of High Court allowed the appeal holding that the respondent and 
appellant had l/3rd share each in the business of DP Store carried in the 
premises and also equal tenancy rights ir1 the premises where DP Store 
business was being carried out and that the partnership business of DP Store 
at the aforesaid premises stood dissolved from 1981. Hence the present appeal. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Although a claim was made by the respondent no. 1 that the 
tenancy had been acquired by the partnership from the beginning, from the 
deposition l'fthe respondent no.I, the following facts have been elicited: (i) 
DP Store was not run by the partners; (ii) All licences of Shree Medico were 
D standing in the name of appellant. Respondent no I had never signed on any 
document pertaining to Shree Medico; (iii) He had no source of income in 
1966; (iv) There is no documentary evidence to show that the said premises 
were acquired out of the funds of partnership firm and that the business of 
partnership was carried out at the same premises; (vi) The property was under 
attachmen~ from 1969 to 1978; (vii) The possession of the property was 
E obtained in 1978; and (viii) respondent no. 1 claimed a share in the business 
which was running under the name and style of 'Shree Medico'. Despite that 
it appears, a statement was made by respondent no. 1 which was recorded by 
trial court that he is not claiming any right in the business of 'Shree Medico' 
but is claiming the right only in respect of the business of'DP Store' and the 
p tenancy rights in respect of the shop premises. (760-H; 761-A-El 
1.2. Appellant may be right in his submission that in view the pleadings 
of the parties as also the statements of the respon

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