Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ii) After such receipt neither V.S.Thangavel nor defendants 1 to 5 did have any right, title or interest in the suit property and the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the same. One Sundararajan & Co Ltd had obtained a money decree in O.S.No.1309/1982 against V.S.Thangavel and brought the suit property for sale in E.P.R.No.107/1986 in the court of the District Munsif, Erode. The said fact was suppressed by late V.S.Thangavel and defendants 1 to 5 at the time of entering into the partnership. After the execution of the Partnership Dissolution Deed, late V.S.Thangavel and defendants 1 to 5 executed a registered Special Power of Attorney for presenting the Deed of Dissolution for registration at Madras. Accordingly, the Dissolution Deed was registered as Document No.572/1986 on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar No.2 in the cadre of District Registrar, North Madras.

30. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A3-Partnership deed was registered in the office of the District Registrar, Erode only on 30.12.1985, even though it was presented in the office for registration on 02.12.1985. The document came to be executed on 12.08.1985 itself. Paradoxically, the plaintiffs contend that the partners realised that they could not carry on the business on 12.09.1985 itself. If it was so how and for what purpose Ex.A3-partnership deed would have been presented for registration on 12.12.1985? Though the document was said to be received on 02.12.1985 for registration, there is no acceptable reason for the delay in registration and assignment of a document number till 30.12.1985. Ex.A4, the deed of dissolution of partnership is said to have been executed on 11.12.1985. From the same, it will be obvious that before ever the partnership deed was given a document number on its registration in the office of the District Registrar, Erode, the deed of dissolution was allegedly executed. Ex.A4-Deed of dissolution is dated 11.12.1985. It does not state the place wherein the same was executed. According to the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiffs, Ex.A4-Dissolution deed was executed at Erode. However, no reason is assigned by the plaintiffs as to why the same was not registered at Erode. The only reason sought to be assigned on the side of the plaintiffs is not convincing. According to them, since the office of the Registrar of Firms was at Madras, Ex.A4 was registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Madras North. The said answer is far from being convincing or believable. We have already seen that the firm itself has not been registered with the Registrar of Firms. That being so, there cannot be any question of taking the dissolution deed to Madras(Chennai) for its registration on the premise that the office of the Registrar of Firms is at Chennai.

37. In the case on hand, the firm has not at all been registered, particulars of partners have not been intimated to the Register of Firms. The alleged dissolution was not intimated to the Registrar of Firms. Hence the only purpose sought to be accomplished by the registration of Ex.A3 was to convert the joint family property of V.S.Thangavel and defendants 1 to 5 into the property of the partnership firm "Marappan Commercial Complex" and the same has been properly done by the execution and registration of Ex.A3-Partnership Deed. However, grave suspicions surround the alleged execution of Ex.A4-Partnership Dissolution Deed, Ex.A5-Special Power of Attorney for presenting Ex.A4 before the Registering Authority for registration and also Ex.A6, the alleged undertaking letter. It is the contention of the defendants that in the guise of doing partnership business, the first plaintiff, with the help of PW2-Somasundaram Chettiar, obtained signatures in many papers and used them for creation of Ex.A4 to A6 documents. It is their further contention that at the time of registering Ex.A3 - Partnership deed, plaintiffs might have obtained the signatures in the papers used for the fabrication of Exs.A4 to A6. Moreover, as pointed out supra, there are corrections and interlineations at page Nos.4 and 6 of Ex.A4 -Partnership Dissolution Deed. Admittedly the corrections and the interlineations were not made at the time when the defendants 1 to 5 and V.S.Thangavel singed the document. PW1 has clearly admitted that those corrections were made by their auditor Lakshmanan at the instruction of the Registrar, at the time of registration of the document. It is pertinent to note that though Ex.A3 was registered in the office of the District Registrar, Erode, who exercised jurisdiction over the area in which the suit property situates, the plaintiffs have chosen to take Ex.A4-Dissolution deed to Madras (North) for its registration. The suit property does not come under the jurisdiction of the Registrar, Madras (North). The only purpose for which Ex.A4 seems to have been registered is to show that the joint title of V.S.Thangavel and defendants 1 to 5 as partners of "Marappan Commercial Complex" got extinguished and the entire property got vested with the plainfiffs. That being so, the document could have been very well registered in the office of the District Registrar/Sub Registrar at Erode.

41. At the helm of affairs is the demonstration by the defendants that the corrections and interlineations were not there at the time of registration of the document in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Madras (North) and they were made subsequently. The defendants have produced a certified copy of the dissolution deed registered as document No.572/1985 on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar No.2 in the rank of District Registrar, Madras (North) and the same has been marked as Ex.B3. A comparison of Exs.A4 and B3 will show that the interlineation and additions made using ink pen at Page Nos.4 and 6 of Ex.A4 were not there in the document when it was registered by the Registering Authority.