Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.59 seconds)The Registration Act, 1908
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
R.N. Samuvier And Anr. vs R.N. Ramasubbier on 8 January, 1931
In the case before, us also in Samuvier's case(1) the
document cannot be said to convey any immovable property by
a partner to another expressly or by necessary implication.
If we may recall, the document executed by the Addanki
partners in favour of the Bhaskara partners records the fact
that the partnership business has come to an end and that
the latter have given up their share in "the machine etc.,
and in the business" and that they have "made over same to
you alone completely by way of adjustment. There is no
express reference to any immovable property herein. No
doubt, the document does recite the fact that the Bhaskara
family has given to the Addanki family certain property.
however, is merely a recital of a fact which had taken place
,earlier. To cases of this type the observations of
Kekewich J, which we have quoted do not apply. The view
taken in Samuvier's case (1) seemed to commend itself to
Varadachariar J., in Thirumalappa v. Ramappa but he was
reversed in Ramappa v. Thirumalappa.
Alasyam Ramappa vs Panyam Thirumalappa And Ors. on 14 March, 1939
In the case before, us also in Samuvier's case(1) the
document cannot be said to convey any immovable property by
a partner to another expressly or by necessary implication.
If we may recall, the document executed by the Addanki
partners in favour of the Bhaskara partners records the fact
that the partnership business has come to an end and that
the latter have given up their share in "the machine etc.,
and in the business" and that they have "made over same to
you alone completely by way of adjustment. There is no
express reference to any immovable property herein. No
doubt, the document does recite the fact that the Bhaskara
family has given to the Addanki family certain property.
however, is merely a recital of a fact which had taken place
,earlier. To cases of this type the observations of
Kekewich J, which we have quoted do not apply. The view
taken in Samuvier's case (1) seemed to commend itself to
Varadachariar J., in Thirumalappa v. Ramappa but he was
reversed in Ramappa v. Thirumalappa.
Firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal And ... vs Bishwanath Prasad on 30 November, 1962
Mr. Chatterjee brought to our notice some English decisions
in addition to those we have adverted to in support, which
agree with the view taken in those cases. He has also
referred to the decisions in Prem Raj Brahmin v. Bhani Ram
Brahmin(3) and Firm Ram Sahay v. Bishwanath(4). We do not
think it necessary to discuss them because they do not add
to what we have already said in support of our view.
For these reasons we uphold the decree of the High Court and
dismiss the appeal with costs.