Sri B Amirjan S/O Late Baji Sab vs Sri A Khaddar Basha S/O Late Abdul Sattar on 16 December, 2008

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B Amirjan S/O Late Baji Sab vs Sri A Khaddar Basha S/O Late Abdul Sattar on 16 December, 2008

Bench: V.Jagannathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated thf: 163' day of December 2008
: B E F' C' R E :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'1'iCE : V.JAGANNATHA*N  uu
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 514 I  *    .

BETWEEN :   -

1

I .

SEE B AMIRJAN s/0 LATE BAJE  ~ 
78YRS. _  wt'.

SRIABDUL wmm s/0 LA'I"E» B"--AMI£éJPa1\IV   V' 
53 ms.   '- 

ABDUL JAVED A1.:A.$_ A JAV_i1D:.1éAs:giAvLA ' '- A . %
sic» B AMIRJAN , so "9123.      

SEE KHAMAF<'--PASHA"SfO::}3 }LM.ER_J}x N «V " '
4'?YRS-  1"  ;   'V '

ALL ma VRfV~3"3R13CR~QSS_. TANK MOHALLA
SHEMOGA c1T'¥"5??;::o'1-,4AND ARE PARTNERS 01?
SR} JAYADEVA MUI2U<;HARAJENDRA SUGAR
INDUSTRY; -_  
.- »  '~ * - ...APPELL.AN'I'S

 {BY sfé:"'S;i?.P12A;<AsH, ADVOCATE. )

 SR} 9; 'KHKDDAR BASHA s/0 LATE ABDUL SATTAR

 PA.RTi'~I}§R OF' SR} JAYADEVA MURUGHARAJENDRA

SUQAR INDUSPRY, PURALE, AND DIRECTOR
GP'--PARIMALA FEEDS AND FOODS PVT LTD

'   NIEHGE, snmoea TALUK 577201

/0 BASAVANAGUDI, 1 MAIN, NEAR VINAYAKA
PARK, SHEMOGA CITY 577201.

B S SHEVANANDAPPA

SIC) SIDDARAMAPPA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF PARIMALA FEEDS AND FOODS PVT' LTE
NZDEGE, SHIMOGA, RIG 3% STAGE

I MAEN, 5 CROSS, VINOBHANAGARA,
SHIMOGA CTTY 577 201.



CHAND BASHA

S_fO ABDUL SATTAR

PARTNER' OF' CHANE) TRADING CO
Dr. M VISWESWARAIAH ROAD CROSS

E?» N ROAD. SHIMOGA, 85 PARTNER, SRE JAYADEVA Vi'  ..
MURUGHARAJENDRA sugar? INDUSRY, PURA§;§3;.. n ;_. 

85 R/O BASAVANAGUDI, I MAIN,

NEAR VINAYAKA PARK I, SHIMOGA cm 5??'  

BHARKATHULLA

S10 LATE ABDUL SATTAR  ._  . 
PARTNER OF CI-{AND TRADING CO V' _
Dr. M VESWESWARAIAH R{)P~..D CROSS"

B N ROAD, SHIMOGA, 85 PA§9§'i*i*IER, sR1_JmfA'£)Ex%A'  

MURUGHARAJENDRA SUGAR,INDUS'TR1'., PUi'eAL:;,
R/O BASAVANAGUDI, I MAEN, 1%EAR_.VINAYA«KA ?ARK
SHIMOGA CITY 57?'_2e«_1. "  

M S ABDUL RAH1M
M s ABDt1IJ---§§AsBA;_éW

N5,sAB:5'U1_;vVQAPooR{".___ . '

12.3; ;;;a%&  LATE MOHAMMAD SAB,
PARTHERSV ohsm .3AY_ADEVA MURUGHARAJENDRA
suGAR'mDUsTRI1'«2_s ,'"F'URALE, SHIMOGA 'I'Aw3<, 85

V, _;f R/Q saﬁzjmgasan MO}-IALLE, GUTHAL COLONY
..  'M!__5;1§IEYA 5'? 1404. *

 -V SR} EXNPNDA KUMAR JANERIWALA

S,¥«VBANK£§3'LAL

. "--»PAR""i'§ER :=OP' SR} JAYADEVA MURUGHARAJENDRA

' ._ SU(}.AR"§NDUSTR1ES, PURALE K

10

 SPKMGGA TALUK AND R/O CHATTARVABI

BEGAM BAZAR, HYDERABAD

 ANDHRA PRADESH
. 9PuKMRA.J DI-IOCYPH

S] 0 Mi} LTAN CHAN!) DHOCYI'

SLEEP!N{3 PARTNER, S/O JAYADEVA
MURUGHARAJENDRA SUGAR
INDUSFREES, PURALE. Si-IIMOCA TALUK 85
R/O 121-3-95, CHALLAPURAM
HYDERABAD, ANBHRA ?i?ADESl-i

JAYADEVA MURUGHARAJENDRA SUGAR



INDUSTRIES, PURALE, SI-ﬁMOGA
mwx 57?2o1, BY THE MANGING PARTNERS
A} SR1 A KHADAR BASHA, 12-1, AND
B} M S ABDUL RAHIM, R-5.
 RESPONDSNTS

( BY SR1 MAHESH WGDEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-_f¥.
SRI M.V.RAMESI~i JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-7.': 
MAHESH RJJPPSN, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R»6. _}  _V r

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL FILED UNDER SEj(:*r:DE..[:  _
OF THE C.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AED DEC-1§EEiV'_IL*I§'I'F.'.D  
2.9.2005

PASSED iN R.A.NO. 95/2002 DE THE EILE "4DE'1i?£IEII§EL:,_V CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.} 85 C.J.M. AT SPiIMQ(';2§I§v DISMISSiES.IfrH.EI I APPEAL AND CDNEIEMIES THE JSDQIEENE AIED' I DATED 7.11.2002 PASSED IN G.S.?!Q. SSS/1995T"DN'«1._TEE. FILE = L' OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (.IE.DN.§E;-SHI1_gIDGA;-- I S "

'IfI+:IS'E'I>I;2ii%I:InIII"::f'r;V:I:>IESI::c; o:~I "'I«*c>'Ié ADMISSION THIS BAY. THE co"SR'r DEL:vs;I2E'D.ITI»IE FOLLOWING ; " ¢*gUDGMENT .. ____ H Sf Secticnn 69 of the Indian 1932 ('the Act' for short) is the focal V appeal ﬁlm by the plaintiffs be-fore the i;muaII The suit of the plajntiﬂs for declaration x V' .tAhe ag'cement of sale Entered into between the first <:iEfEDciant and the seccnd defendant is void and iilegal " not binding on Sri Jayadeva Murugharajendra Sugar Industries and its partners and alse for % H 4 permanent injunction came to be dismissed and, on appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate court only considered the question reiating to maintainability of the suit in View of Section 59 of the Act and held tilatttize plaintiffs' ﬁrm being an unregistered the bar under Section 69 of uh' application and consequently, the«é1o%i§re3'V f. held that the suit of the pemaﬁrs is not a t and accordingly dismissed d

2. s.v.prakash for the appeliaoizsd ..-the courts below were not justified in "ho:d;ng tr;a£'i-he suit of the plaintiffs is not Vaeareful reading of the provisions of Act will go to indicate that the suit of for the nature of the reliefs sought is izoaintainable and, therefore, the View taken by A below needs to be interfered with. Secondly ..i_tI%was submitted that the appellants have also ﬁled an ' application with certain documents before the lower appeliate court in order to show that the sale of the suit 2» ,1 property was not in accordance with law and sale Was, in fact, set aside and the property_ _ restored back in the name ef the jgenth "

therefore, the lower appellate 'V allowed the application , documents produced. But, _not.to«-- V}

3. On the other hano, Shri Mahesh Rﬁppin fer of the courts below Ink-at' V no interference is calied for V'

4. In the lig1it._4of,t.né:.e:Dove::_"e1ibmissions made by the learned forﬁthe. Vgerties, the substantial question of V'1-gwvioﬁzat to be considered is whether the in hoiding that the suit of the _ﬂ~}_).l4ai3T1.1Tiffs is not' Inaintainable in the light of the contained in Section 69 of the Act. V _ * -»SecﬁoI1 69 of the Act reads as under:

"69. Effect of non-registration. «- (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or $7 9 6 conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a ﬁrm against the ﬁrm or any person alleged to be or to have been a,-up partner in the ﬁrm unless the ﬁrm gs-. regstered and the person s1 23' ng is or jj been shown in the Register of ._ partner in the ﬁrm.

(2) No suits to eﬂforce right from a contract shall 'instituted court by or on third party unless j. i.=.'§"'15<f-_.gﬁs--tereci and the persons or. have been shown in the Reg"st_erTo'f parmers in the ﬁrm.

proxrilsions of subsections (1) (2) shéilivagjply also to a claim of set--oﬁ' A" 'V .. Vor._Vot1:er'p_rooeedi£1g to enforce a right arising c~orii::rae1:, but shall not aﬁect --~ 2 {aj the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a. ﬁrm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved ﬁrm; or (33) the powers of an oﬁicial assignee, receiver or court under the Residency- 1*:

towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 or 1909) or the Provincial Insolvency Act, H (5 of 1920), to realise the pmpcrty--o.'of "

insoivcnt partner.

(4) This section     -  «. " 

to ﬁrms or to  in

have no Vplece .91' "3V3';3ei:1ﬂess tiie tcnitories to ' extends, or whose vplaoes" busincés " the said _ " areas to

3 'by. 'under Section ~ éiotzeﬁot apply, or

-. to any '[1 claim or set-oﬁ' not 'Loxceedi:1g..o13;e'}1undred rupees in value which,' the Presidenc'y-towns, is not kind speciﬁed in Section 19 of the '?i?e$idency Small Cause Courts Act, (15 of 1882), or outside the 'Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Pmvimrial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidental to or arising from any such suit or claim. "

}~ _ I

6. A careful reading of subsection (3) of Section 69 will make it clear that the bar contained in sub~sec.ftions (1) and (2) shall not have any effect iltsoilfm enforcement of any right to sue for the 'pf ta t ﬁrm or for accounts of a dissolved elf 'V9:

power to realise the pr0pe1fty.4__of at' in View of the above exception o1tt~'t.éuti§$ecﬁon (3) (a), the suit of the ' tjéingiiot maﬁtainable, therefore, does not teetitrts below have erred provisions of Section 69 and (3)(a) of Section 69.

7. :.A.s_ question being dissolved is . lotxteﬂféétppeliate ctzaurt has also referred to 171/1989 and the judgxnent rendered tht-3I"t:.i11,___v is produced as Ex.P--1, to hold that the itt'q§1estion was in fact dissolved. Therefore, the egtsctaf the plaintiffs ﬁlls squarely within the pmvisions Vt -»c-o;ntai11ed in sub--sectioI1 (3)(a) of Section 69 of the Act. The courts below, therefore, were in error in holding that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. 5'?

8. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the pla§z1tiﬁ's only on the basis of the V. as regards the suit of the plaJ'11t.iﬂ's" WV" K maintainable and did not go intowotlier matter. The documents by along with the application Ordes 41-"7Rtile of the C. RC. were ,. the application came to jslppellants new state that tlltf aside and the properfﬁf back to the tenth defendsnt.' = l' .:ﬁ1efel"sre, of the View that the judmrgents oi" tl1eV.cot1i-'ts"'l:>elow need to be set aside and 'l V. "'the""ﬁiatter will haiiellts be remanded to the uial court to dseuments preducecl by the appellants and thereafter tiispczse of the matter in accordance with "levy a time limit.

' 9}; For the above reasons, the substantial question of " "law is answered by holding that the view taken by the courts below as regards the suit of the plaintiﬁs is not maixltainable is against the very provisions of law & ,a 10 contained in Section 69(3)(a) of the Act and hence, I pass the following order:

The appeal is allowed. The judments of the courts below are stat aside and the matter remitted to the trial court to consider produced by the appellants and thergaftex' 'A " V the matter on merits in accordai'1{:e1'_"w&'i11 period of six months ﬁ~om' t}i::_da't'e of this » % judgment.

Both 'before the trial court on 19.1.2009. V' " 'V sd/-1 Iaéga

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court