Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.294 OF 2012 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.196 OF 2012
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.347 OF 2014
IN RFA No.294/2012
BETWEEN:
SMT RADHAMMA
W/O GOPAL REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A GARVEBHAVIPALYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 068.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT LAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. SMT. ARCHANA
W/O A MARI REDDY
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. SMT. HIMABINDU
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
4. JHANSI
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO.40, PAPAMMA'S HOUSE
GARVEBHAVIPALAYA,
TH
7 MILE HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 068.
5. SMT. INDRAMMA
W/O RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
GARVEBHAVIPALAYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 068.
6. N R GUPTA
S/O LATE BANWARILAL
CHOWDRY , MAJOR
7. S S GUPTA
S/O M L GUPTA, MAJOR
8. MAHENDRA KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
9. PAVAN KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE
R/AT NO.19 GRANT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
10. SRI. A. RAMA REDDY
S/O A ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.453, 15 CROSS
LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
11. SRI. H.P RAMA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA APPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
TH
R/A NO.355, 36 CROSS
TH TH
5 MAIN, 4 BALOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.
12. SRI. V. KIRAN
S/O VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.1140, 17 CROSS
TH
17 SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V S HEGDE.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4;
SRI. K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 06.01.2021, R8 & R9 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R6;
V/O DATED 01.04.2015 NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R9;
SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R12)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.5639/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING
THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFFS THEREIN FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE
POSSESSION AND DECLARATION AND DISMISSING THE
CLAIMS OF DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 THEREIN FOR PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN RFA NO.196/2012
BETWEEN:
SMT INDRAMMA
W/O RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT GARVEDHABIPALYA
BEGUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C. VENKATESH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT LAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. SMT. ARCHANA
W/O A MARI REDDY
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. SMT. HIMA BINDU
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4. JHANSI
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO.40, PAPAMMA'S HOUSE
GARVEBHAVIPALAYA,
TH
7 MILE HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 068.
5. SMT. INDRAMMA
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
W/O RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
GARVEBHAVIPALAYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 068.
6. N R GUPTA
S/O LATE BANWARILAL
CHOWDRY, MAJOR
7. S S GUPTA
S/O M L GUPTA, MAJOR
8. MAHENDRA KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
9. PAVAN KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE
R/AT NO.19, GRANT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
10. SRI. A. RAMA REDDY
S/O A ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.453, 15 CROSS
LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
11. SRI. H.P RAMA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA APPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
TH
R/A NO.355, 36 CROSS
TH TH
5 MAIN, 4 BALOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.
12. SRI. V. KIRAN
S/O VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
TH
R/AT NO.1140, 17 CROSS
TH
17 SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. B.S. GURUDATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 26.08.2014, R8 & R9 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R6;
V/O DATED 01.04.2015 NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R9;
SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R12)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.5639/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING
THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFFS THEREIN FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE
POSSESSION AND DECLARATION AND DISMISSING THE
CLAIMS OF DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 THEREIN FOR PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
IN RFA NO.347/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. SMT ARCHANA
W/O MARIREDDY
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
3. KUM HIMA BINDU
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
4. KUM JHANSI
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.40
"PAPAMMAS HOUSE",
GAREBHOVIPALYA, 7ST MILE
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 068.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT INDRAMMA
W/O RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
GARVEBHAVIPALYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 068.
2. SMT. RADHAMMA
W/O GOPAL REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A GARVEBHAVIPALYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 068.
3. N R GUPTA
S/O LATE BANWARILAL
CHOUDHARY, MAJOR
4. S S GUPTA
S/O M L GUPTA, MAJOR
5. MAHENDRA KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
6. PAVAN KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT NO.19, GRANT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
7. SRI. A. RAMA REDDY
S/O A ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.453, 15 CROSS
LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
8. SRI. H.P RAMA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA APPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
TH
R/A NO.355, 36 CROSS
TH TH
5 MAIN, 4 BALOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.
9. SRI. V. KIRAN
S/O VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.1140, 17 CROSS
TH
17 SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.S. GURUDATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 06.01.2021, R5 & R6 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R3;
V/O DATED 06.01.2021, NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH;
SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6;
SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R7 TOR R9( VK NOT
FILED)
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED1.10.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.5639/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII-ADDL. CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND DECLARATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs are before this Court in RFA No.347/2014, while,
defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in RFA No.196/2012 and RFA
No.294/2012 respectively being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 15.10.2011 passed in O.S.No.5639/2007 on the
file of XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby, the trial
Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs has also
dismissed counter claim made by the defendant Nos.1 and 2
rd
seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/3 share in
the suit schedule property.
2. Subject matter of the suit is the dry agricultural land
measuring 2 acres and 08 guntas in Sy.No.55/5C of
Hongassandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the suit schedule property)
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. Plaintiffs/appellants in RFA No.347/2014, filed above
rd
suit for partition and separate possession of the 2/3 share in
the suit schedule property and for the declaration to the effect
that the suit schedule property belonged to the family
consisting of themselves and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and for
further direction of defendant Nos.3 to 6 to deliver them
possession of suit schedule property. The plaint was
apparently amended seeking additional relief of declaration to
the effect that the alleged investment of the suit schedule
property, which is an agricultural land into a partnership
business of partnership firm vide partnership deed dated
30.10.1980, constituting M/s. Karnataka Agrarian Poultry and
Dairy farm is void being in violation of provisions of Sections
79-A, 79-B, 79-C and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961.
4. It is contented by the plaintiffs/appellants that land
bearing Sy.No.55/5, originally measuring 6 acres 24 guntas of
land situated at Hongassandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk, originally belonged to one Sri. Abbaiah, who
passed away leaving behind three sons namely Sri. Krishna
Reddy, Sri. Ramaiah Reddy and Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy, who
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
had effected the partition, in terms of which, Sri. Ramaiah
Reddy was allotted his share of 2 acres 8 guntas which was
assigned with Sy.No.55/5C. 2 acres 8 guntas was allotted to
Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy, which was assigned with
Sy.No.55/5B. So also the remaining extent of 2 acres 8 guntas
of land was allotted to the share of Sri. Krishna Reddy, which
was assigned with Sy.No.55/5A.
4.1 That Sri. Ramaiah Reddy married to one Smt.
Papamma, who are blessed with a son Sri. Rajappa Reddy and
two daughters by name Smt. Indramma and Smt. Radhamma,
who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit. Plaintiff No.1 is the
widow and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of late Sri.
Rajappa Reddy S/o Sri. Ramaiah Reddy.
4.2 It is contended that Sri. Ramaiah Reddy and his son
Sri. Rajappa Reddy constituted Hindu joint family. Sri. Ramaiah
Reddy passed away in the year 1968, when his son Sri.
Rajappa Reddy was still a minor. Suit schedule property was
being cultivated by Smt. Pappamma, widow of Sri. Ramaiah
Reddy. That Sri. Rajappa Reddy was working as a Waterman
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
in the City Municipal Council, Bomanahalli, was addicted to bad
vices and died on 09.10.1989.
4.3 Smt. Papamma was illiterate and ignorant lady. At
the time of death of Sri. Rajappa Reddy, plaintiff Nos.2 to 4
were minors. Being minors, were virtually thrown to the streets
as they had lost their only earning member in the family.
When they had enquired about the property with Smt.
Papamma, she apparently pleaded ignorance. However,
plaintiff No.2 through her husband learnt that in a partition, the
property was allotted to her grandfather/Sri.Ramaiah Reddy
and upon further enquiry, she learnt that in the property which
was allotted the share of Sri. Ramaiah Reddy, some stranger
was in possession. Accordingly, they filed a suit for partition,
separate possession and for declaration.
4.4 After service of notice, defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6
appeared through their counsel. Defendant No.4 remained
absent and was placed ex-parte. Defendant No.3 passed away
and legal representatives were already on record. Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 consented for decreeing the suit claiming their
rd
1/3 share in the property.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
4.5 The only contestants were defendant Nos.5 and 6,
who apart from denying the plaint averments, pleaded that
with an intention of expanding their business, they entered into
partnership agreement dated 30.10.1980 with Sri.
Venkataswamy Reddy, the brother of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy
along with his wife and children and with defendant Nos.3 to 6
to carry on the business under the name and style of ''M/s
Karnataka Agrerian Poultry and Dairy Farm''.
4.6 Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy had his property situated
adjacent to the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.3 to 6
had invested money as capital and Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy,
wife and children of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy had invested their
landed properties including the suit schedule property as their
capital contribution to the firm. As such, the suit schedule
property had become the asset of the aforesaid partnership
firm namely M/s. Karnataka Agrerian Poultry and Dairy Farm.
4.7 It is further contented that Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy,
wife and children of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy were in need of
money. As such by executing a deed of retirement dated
23.01.1982 they exited/retired from the partnership firm by
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
receiving the valuable consideration from defendant Nos.3 to 6.
Defendant Nos.3 to 6 became the sole continuing partners of
the firm. In addition to executing deed of retirement dated
23.01.1982, Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy, his wife and children of
Sri. Ramaiah Reddy had also sworn to a joint affidavit
confirming the fact that they having retired from the firm.
4.8 It is also contented that on the suit schedule property
having been invested as the capital contribution of the firm, the
name of the firm was mutated in the revenue records in
Hongasandra Grama panchayat, which had issued 'No Objection
Certificate' in respect to the suit property to be used for
running poultry farm. The partnership firm was registered with
the Registrar of Firms. After retirement of Sri. Venkataswamy
Reddy, wife and children of Sri. Ramaiah Reddy, by executing
deed of retirement dated 23.01.1982, the change in the
partnership has been registered with the Registrar of Firms.
4.9 That later suit schedule property has been handed
over to one M/s. Chamundi Steel Re-rolling Mills for storing raw
materials.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
4.10 That Bangalore Development Authority had
proposed to acquire the suit property and had issued
preliminary notification dated 28.04.1998 to which defendant
Nos.3 to 6 had filed their objections. Which was well within the
knowledge of the plaintiffs and other landowners. Plaintiffs, as
such are not entitled to any share in the suit property. But the
same is filed in collusion with defendant Nos.1 and 2.
4.11 Subsequent to filing of the written statement,
plaintiffs got the suit amended to contend that the suit
schedule property being agricultural land could not have been
invested into a partnership firm and it was in violation of
provisions Sections 79-A, 79-B, 79-C and 80 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act and that the firm, M/s. Karnataka Agrerian
Poultry and Diary Firm was not competent to hold the suit
schedule property. As such, sought for additional relief of
declaration and delivered possession in that regard.
5. Based on the pleadings the trial Court framed the
following:
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
ISSUES
1) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the legal heirs of late
Sri Rajappa Reddy?
2) Whether plaintiffs prove that suit property is joint family
property consisting of themselves and defendant Nos.1 and 22?
3) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to a share in
the suit schedule property and if so to what share?
4) Whether defendant Nos.5 and 6 prove that widow & children
of late Sri Ramaiah Reddy had executed a partnership deed
dld:30. 10. 1980 and invested the suit property in the business
of partnership firm "Karnataka Agrarian Poultry and Diary Farm'
as their share capital?
5) Whether defendant Nos.5 and 6 prove that the widow and
children of late Sri Ramaiah Reddy have retired from the Firm
by executing a deed of retirement dated 23.1 1982?
6) Whether defendant Nos 1 and 2 are entitled to a share in the
suit property and if so to what share?
7) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought for?
8) What decree of order?
Additional issues
1) Whether suit of plaintiffs is, in time?
2) Whether defendant, Nos 5 and 6. prove that. suit of plaintiffs
is. bad for, non-joinder of necessary party?
3) Whether defendant Nos:5 and 6 prove that they had
perfected their title to suit property. by adverse possession?
4) Whether the Court fee paid by plaintiffs on their plaint is
proper and sufficient?
6. Plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked
9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. Defendant No.5 examined as
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
DW1 and exhibited 64 documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D64. Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 have got examined themselves as DW2 and DW3.
7. On appreciation of evidence, trial Court answered issue
Nos.1, 4, 5 and additional issue Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative.
issue Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 and additional issue No.1 and 4 in the
negative and consequently dismissed the suit.
8. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeals are filed
by the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 as noted
above.
9. Sri. Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in RFA No.294/2012 which is filed by defendant
No.2, taking this Court through the records, more particularly,
partnership deed produced at Ex.D61 dated 30.10.1980
submits;
(a) that the contents of the said document would reveal
that the parties did not intend to treat the suit schedule
property to be the capital contribution of the firm. He submits
that the parties had expressly agreed that partnership firm may
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
choose to purchase the property. He refers to clause-7 of the
said document in justification of his submission.
(b) He also refers to clause-16 of the said document to
submit that any partner desirous of retiring from the firm was
entitled to do so by giving a month's notice. In such an event,
the continuing partners may purchase the share of the retiring
partner. Thus, referring to clause-7 and Clause-16 he
vehemently submits that since there is no deed of conveyance
as contemplated under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908
has been brought into existence, there is no conveyance in the
eyes of law. Therefore, he submits that the defendant Nos.3 to
6 cannot claim the partnership firm has become owner of the
property. He also submits that the partnership firm is not a
legal entity. It survives and thrives only with the existence of
the partners. It cannot have its own independent existence.
Therefore, any contribution brought into the partnership firm in
the nature of immovable property has to be by way of deed of
conveyance.
(c) He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of ARM Group Enterprises Ltd., Vs.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
1
Waldorf Restaurant and others , at paragraph No.35 of the
said judgment, to contend that there shall be express or
implied contract between the parties to treat the immovable
property as the property of the firm and perusal of Ex.D61-
Partnership Deed, according to him would not indicate there
being any express or implied contract between the partners to
treat the suit schedule property as a partnership firm.
Therefore, he submits in the absence of any registered deed as
required in Section 17 of the Registration Act, there is no
conveyance in the eyes of law, as such the property remains
the property of Sri. Ramaiah Reddy, to which the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for the share herein.
10. Sri. B.C. Venkatesh, and Sri. Vishwanatha K, learned
counsels' appearing for the other appellants in RFA
Nos.196/2012 and 347/2014 adopts the same argument.
11. In response, Sri. V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.10 to 12 in RFA Nos.294/2012 and
196/2012, respondent Nos.7 to 9 in RFA No.347/2014, who are
1
(2003) 6 SCC 423
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit,
submits as under:
(a) Justifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, more particularly its finding and conclusion arrived at on
issue No.4, relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sachin Jaiswal Vs. M/s. Hotel Alka Raje and
others in SLP (C) No.18717/2022 decided on 27.02.2025 .
In addition, he also relies upon the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. Juggilal Kamalapat reported
in AIR 1967 SC 401 and also the judgment of the High Court
of Madras in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority Vs. Chidambaram, Partner,Thachanallur Sugar
Mills and Distilleries and others reported in AIR 1970
MADRAS 5 .
(b) That the law with regard to vesting of the right, title
or interest in respect of an immovable property in the
partnership firm, brought in as a capital contribution by any
partner is well settled, warranting no further probe. He submits
that the partnership firm is capable of holding the property in
terms of Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
provided the parties have agreed that the immovable property
brought in by them to be treated as a capital contribution.
(c) That perusal of clause Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 of the
Partnership deed dated 30.10.1980 produced at Ex.D61 leaves
no doubt the parties indeed had expressly agreed the
immovable property, which is subject matter to the present suit
had been brought in as a capital contribution, which remains so
even after they having exited/retired from the partnership firm
in terms of a retirement deed.
Thus, he submits that trial Court has committed no error
in dismissing the suit, warranting interference at the hands of
this Court.
12. Heard and perused the records.
13. Points that arises for consideration are;
1. Whether the suit schedule property had been brought into
the partnership firm namely Karnataka Agrerian Poultry and
Dairy Farm by Smt. Papamma and Sri. Rajappa Reddy, the wife
and son of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy as their capital
contribution?
2. Whether the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have proved
the suit schedule property was not contributed into the
partnership firm and has remained as a family property?
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit?
14. Plaintiffs have not disputed, partnership deed dated
30.10.1980 at Ex.D61 executed by and between Smt.
Papamma and Sri. Rajappa Reddy, the wife and son of late Sri.
Ramaiah Reddy and daughters of Sri. Ramaiah Reddy namely
Smt. Indrani (shown as Smt. Indramma in the suit) and Smt.
Radhamma through and under whom, they are claiming share,
right, title and interest in the suit schedule property.
15. It is also not in dispute that the said partnership
firm was registered. Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act,
1932 reads as under:
''14. The property of the firm.—
Subject to contract between the partners, the property of the
firm includes all property and rights and interests in property
originally brought into the stock of the firm, or acquired, by
purchase or otherwise, by or for the firm, or for the purposes
and in the course of business of the firm, and includes also the
goodwill of the business. Unless the contrary intention appears,
property and rights and interests in property acquired with
money belonging to the firm are deemed to have been acquired
for the firm.''
16. Thus, unless otherwise agreed between the parties or
unless contrary intention appears, the property brought in as a
capital contribution or business of a firm shall be treated as a
property of the firm.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
17. Clause 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16 of the Partnership deed
dated 30.10.1980, which is relied upon both learned counsel for
the plaintiffs as well as the defendants read as under:
'' 5. Before entering into the partnership the party of the II part
has valued the land at Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty
Thousand) only and has brought the same in partnership by
way of their capital contribution.
6. The party of the II party shall invest in the business a sum
of Rs.1,50,000/-
7. The partnership if it decided may acquire and hold properties
in the name or name of the one or more of its partners and no
in that individual capacity.
8. The partner hereby mutually agrees that the property of the
firm includes all property, rights and interest in the property
brought in by the partners at the time of commencement of this
partnership, stock of the firm and property acquired by the firm
from its funds, and includes also the good-will of the business.
All personal rights and interest if any of the individual partners
shall stand extinguished and it shall form part and parcel of the
firm, the individual rights if any shall merge with the
partnership firm.
16. if any partners desirous if retire from the partnership
he/she will be entitled to do so by giving one month's written
notice to the other partners. The out-going partner or partner
shall not entitled to assign his/her share to any stranger,
However the continuing partners may purchase the share of the
retiring o\partner/s for the benefit of the firm.''
18. Clearly, descendants of Sri. Abbaiah, namely Sri.
Venkataswamy Reddy, his daughter-in-law Smt.Papamma and
Sri. Rajappa Reddy (wife and son of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy)
respectively and others had consciously become partners of the
firm and had contributed the suit schedule property as their
capital contribution valued the same at Rs.1,30,000/-. In
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
addition, they had also invested amount as found in Clause-6.
Clause-8 provides for an express ''agreement'' that had been
entered into between the parties to treat that all the properties
of the firm including properties brought in by the partners at
the time of commencement of the firm as partnership property
and all personal rights and interests, if any, of the individual
partners stood extinguished forming the same as part and
parcel of the assets of the firm. This being the only meaning
that can be assigned to the contract referred to hereinabove,
any other meaning would not be consonance with the facts and
circumstances of the case, more particularly, when there is no
dispute raised by Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy.
19. The trial Court having taken into consideration the
factual and legal aspect of the matter, has found that the suit
schedule property had been indeed brought in as a capital
contribution by the wife and children of late Sri. Ramaiah
Reddy, who are the plaintiffs. Therefore challenge mounted by
them to wriggle out of the consequences of they having
brought the immovable property to the firm has been negated.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of ARM Group Enterprises
Ltd., (Supra) which is relied upon by the appellants, at
paragraph No.35 has held as under:
35. Under Section 14 of the Partnership Act, 1932, in the
absence of an agreement to the contrary, property exclusively
belonging to a person, on his entering into partnership with
others, does not become a property of the partnership merely
because it is used for the business of the partnership. Such
property will become property of the partnership only if there is
an agreement - express or implied - that the property was,
under the agreement of the partnership, to be treated as a
property of the partnership.
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. There cannot be any doubt, that should there be an
express agreement amongst the partners to treat the property
as the firm's property, it shall be treated as a property of the
firm, which is the case at hand.
21. As regards, the requirement of registration of a
document of conveyance in favour of partnership firm as
contended by the appellant is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in
its judgment rendered in the case of the Commissioner of
Income Tax, West Bengal (Supra) at paragraph Nos.8 and 9,
adverting to the question with regard to requirement of
registration of a immovable property, which was brought in as
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
a capital contribution for the purpose of Section 17(1) of the
Registration Act reads as under:
''8. It appears to us that, in this case, the submissions that were made on
behalf of the Commissioner before the High Court and which have been made
before us have ignored the effect of the important relevant documents and have
unnecessarily placed too much reliance on the Deed of Relinquishment. The
Tribunal found that a Kamla Town Trust had been constituted of which the three
Singhania Brothers were the Trustees. The Tribunal also found that a deed of
partnership was executed so as to constitute the firm Juggilal Kamalapat,
consisting of two partners, the Kamala Town Trust, represented by the three
trustees, and Jhabbarmal Saraf. Their shares in the profits and losses were also
specified in the deed of partnership. There was the further finding by the
Income Tax Officer that the Kamla Town Trust, which entered into the
partnership, actually introduced a sum of Rs 50,000 as its capital in this
partnership firm. On these facts by themselves, it should have been held that a
valid partnership had come into existence.
9. So far as the deed of relinquishment is concerned, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the Commissioner has not been able to show to us any provision of
law, or any decision of a court laying down that a deed of relinquishment
executed by partners of a firm in respect of their share and interest in a firm
required registration, in case the firm owned immovable properties. In this
connection, learned Counsel for the respondent firm brought to our notice a
recent decision of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa
(dead) [(1966) 3 SCR 400] where the question that came up for consideration
was whether the interest of a partner in partnership assets comprising of
movable as well as immovable property should be treated as movable or
immovable property for the purposes of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act,
1908. The court upheld the view of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishtappa [ILR 1959 AP p. 387]
Mudholkar, J., speaking for this Court held:“It seems to us that looking to the
scheme of the Indian Act, no other view can reasonably be taken. The whole
concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose
to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property.
Once that is done, whatever is brought in would cease to be the exclusive
property of the person who brought it in. It would be the trading asset of the
partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their
share in the joint venture of the business of partnership. The person who
brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive
right over any property which he has brought in, much less over any other
partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his right even to the
extent of his share in the business of the partnership. As already stated, his
right during the subsistence of the partnership is to get his share of profits from
time to time as may be agreed upon among the partners and after the
dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from partnership of the
value of his share in the net partnership assets as on the date of dissolution or
retirement after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges”.
On this basis, the ultimate decision was that a deed, evidencing the transfer of
an interest of a partner in partnership assets, does not require registration even
though the partnership assets are comprised of movable as well as immovable
property.''
(Emphasis Supplied)
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
22. The aforesaid exposition of law has been consistently
followed even as late as in the judgment of Sachin Jaiswal
(Supra).
23. Thus two primary contentions urged by the appellant,
assailing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court
cannot be countenanced in the light of the aforesaid factual and
legal aspect of the matter.
24. In view of deletion of provisions of Sections 79 and
79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, have been omitted by
Act 56 of 2020 retrospectively, the contention urged in this
regard is not adverted.
25. Appeals failed, same are dismissed .
26. Judgment and decree dated 15.10.2011 passed by
the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore
City is confirmed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.294 OF 2012 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.196 OF 2012
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.347 OF 2014
IN RFA No.294/2012
BETWEEN:
SMT RADHAMMA
W/O GOPAL REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A GARVEBHAVIPALYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 068.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT LAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. SMT. ARCHANA
W/O A MARI REDDY
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. SMT. HIMABINDU
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
4. JHANSI
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO.40, PAPAMMA'S HOUSE
GARVEBHAVIPALAYA,
TH
7 MILE HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 068.
5. SMT. INDRAMMA
W/O RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
GARVEBHAVIPALAYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 068.
6. N R GUPTA
S/O LATE BANWARILAL
CHOWDRY , MAJOR
7. S S GUPTA
S/O M L GUPTA, MAJOR
8. MAHENDRA KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
9. PAVAN KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE
R/AT NO.19 GRANT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
10. SRI. A. RAMA REDDY
S/O A ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.453, 15 CROSS
LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
11. SRI. H.P RAMA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA APPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
TH
R/A NO.355, 36 CROSS
TH TH
5 MAIN, 4 BALOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.
12. SRI. V. KIRAN
S/O VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.1140, 17 CROSS
TH
17 SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V S HEGDE.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4;
SRI. K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 06.01.2021, R8 & R9 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R6;
V/O DATED 01.04.2015 NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R9;
SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R12)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.5639/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING
THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFFS THEREIN FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE
POSSESSION AND DECLARATION AND DISMISSING THE
CLAIMS OF DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 THEREIN FOR PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN RFA NO.196/2012
BETWEEN:
SMT INDRAMMA
W/O RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT GARVEDHABIPALYA
BEGUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C. VENKATESH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT LAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. SMT. ARCHANA
W/O A MARI REDDY
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3. SMT. HIMA BINDU
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4. JHANSI
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO.40, PAPAMMA'S HOUSE
GARVEBHAVIPALAYA,
TH
7 MILE HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 068.
5. SMT. INDRAMMA
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
W/O RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
GARVEBHAVIPALAYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 068.
6. N R GUPTA
S/O LATE BANWARILAL
CHOWDRY, MAJOR
7. S S GUPTA
S/O M L GUPTA, MAJOR
8. MAHENDRA KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
9. PAVAN KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE
R/AT NO.19, GRANT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
10. SRI. A. RAMA REDDY
S/O A ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.453, 15 CROSS
LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
11. SRI. H.P RAMA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA APPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
TH
R/A NO.355, 36 CROSS
TH TH
5 MAIN, 4 BALOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.
12. SRI. V. KIRAN
S/O VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
TH
R/AT NO.1140, 17 CROSS
TH
17 SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. B.S. GURUDATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 26.08.2014, R8 & R9 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R6;
V/O DATED 01.04.2015 NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R9;
SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R12)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.5639/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING
THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFFS THEREIN FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE
POSSESSION AND DECLARATION AND DISMISSING THE
CLAIMS OF DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 THEREIN FOR PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
IN RFA NO.347/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. SMT ARCHANA
W/O MARIREDDY
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
3. KUM HIMA BINDU
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
4. KUM JHANSI
D/O LATE RAJAPPA REDDY
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.40
"PAPAMMAS HOUSE",
GAREBHOVIPALYA, 7ST MILE
HOSUR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 068.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT INDRAMMA
W/O RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
GARVEBHAVIPALYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 068.
2. SMT. RADHAMMA
W/O GOPAL REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A GARVEBHAVIPALYA
BEGUR HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 068.
3. N R GUPTA
S/O LATE BANWARILAL
CHOUDHARY, MAJOR
4. S S GUPTA
S/O M L GUPTA, MAJOR
5. MAHENDRA KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
6. PAVAN KUMAR
S/O N R GUPTA, MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT NO.19, GRANT ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
7. SRI. A. RAMA REDDY
S/O A ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.453, 15 CROSS
LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
8. SRI. H.P RAMA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA APPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
TH
R/A NO.355, 36 CROSS
TH TH
5 MAIN, 4 BALOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.
9. SRI. V. KIRAN
S/O VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO.1140, 17 CROSS
TH
17 SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.S. GURUDATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 06.01.2021, R5 & R6 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R3;
V/O DATED 06.01.2021, NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH;
SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6;
SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R7 TOR R9( VK NOT
FILED)
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED1.10.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.5639/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII-ADDL. CITY
CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND DECLARATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs are before this Court in RFA No.347/2014, while,
defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in RFA No.196/2012 and RFA
No.294/2012 respectively being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 15.10.2011 passed in O.S.No.5639/2007 on the
file of XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby, the trial
Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs has also
dismissed counter claim made by the defendant Nos.1 and 2
rd
seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/3 share in
the suit schedule property.
2. Subject matter of the suit is the dry agricultural land
measuring 2 acres and 08 guntas in Sy.No.55/5C of
Hongassandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the suit schedule property)
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. Plaintiffs/appellants in RFA No.347/2014, filed above
rd
suit for partition and separate possession of the 2/3 share in
the suit schedule property and for the declaration to the effect
that the suit schedule property belonged to the family
consisting of themselves and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and for
further direction of defendant Nos.3 to 6 to deliver them
possession of suit schedule property. The plaint was
apparently amended seeking additional relief of declaration to
the effect that the alleged investment of the suit schedule
property, which is an agricultural land into a partnership
business of partnership firm vide partnership deed dated
30.10.1980, constituting M/s. Karnataka Agrarian Poultry and
Dairy farm is void being in violation of provisions of Sections
79-A, 79-B, 79-C and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961.
4. It is contented by the plaintiffs/appellants that land
bearing Sy.No.55/5, originally measuring 6 acres 24 guntas of
land situated at Hongassandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk, originally belonged to one Sri. Abbaiah, who
passed away leaving behind three sons namely Sri. Krishna
Reddy, Sri. Ramaiah Reddy and Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy, who
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
had effected the partition, in terms of which, Sri. Ramaiah
Reddy was allotted his share of 2 acres 8 guntas which was
assigned with Sy.No.55/5C. 2 acres 8 guntas was allotted to
Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy, which was assigned with
Sy.No.55/5B. So also the remaining extent of 2 acres 8 guntas
of land was allotted to the share of Sri. Krishna Reddy, which
was assigned with Sy.No.55/5A.
4.1 That Sri. Ramaiah Reddy married to one Smt.
Papamma, who are blessed with a son Sri. Rajappa Reddy and
two daughters by name Smt. Indramma and Smt. Radhamma,
who are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit. Plaintiff No.1 is the
widow and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of late Sri.
Rajappa Reddy S/o Sri. Ramaiah Reddy.
4.2 It is contended that Sri. Ramaiah Reddy and his son
Sri. Rajappa Reddy constituted Hindu joint family. Sri. Ramaiah
Reddy passed away in the year 1968, when his son Sri.
Rajappa Reddy was still a minor. Suit schedule property was
being cultivated by Smt. Pappamma, widow of Sri. Ramaiah
Reddy. That Sri. Rajappa Reddy was working as a Waterman
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
in the City Municipal Council, Bomanahalli, was addicted to bad
vices and died on 09.10.1989.
4.3 Smt. Papamma was illiterate and ignorant lady. At
the time of death of Sri. Rajappa Reddy, plaintiff Nos.2 to 4
were minors. Being minors, were virtually thrown to the streets
as they had lost their only earning member in the family.
When they had enquired about the property with Smt.
Papamma, she apparently pleaded ignorance. However,
plaintiff No.2 through her husband learnt that in a partition, the
property was allotted to her grandfather/Sri.Ramaiah Reddy
and upon further enquiry, she learnt that in the property which
was allotted the share of Sri. Ramaiah Reddy, some stranger
was in possession. Accordingly, they filed a suit for partition,
separate possession and for declaration.
4.4 After service of notice, defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6
appeared through their counsel. Defendant No.4 remained
absent and was placed ex-parte. Defendant No.3 passed away
and legal representatives were already on record. Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 consented for decreeing the suit claiming their
rd
1/3 share in the property.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
4.5 The only contestants were defendant Nos.5 and 6,
who apart from denying the plaint averments, pleaded that
with an intention of expanding their business, they entered into
partnership agreement dated 30.10.1980 with Sri.
Venkataswamy Reddy, the brother of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy
along with his wife and children and with defendant Nos.3 to 6
to carry on the business under the name and style of ''M/s
Karnataka Agrerian Poultry and Dairy Farm''.
4.6 Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy had his property situated
adjacent to the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.3 to 6
had invested money as capital and Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy,
wife and children of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy had invested their
landed properties including the suit schedule property as their
capital contribution to the firm. As such, the suit schedule
property had become the asset of the aforesaid partnership
firm namely M/s. Karnataka Agrerian Poultry and Dairy Farm.
4.7 It is further contented that Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy,
wife and children of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy were in need of
money. As such by executing a deed of retirement dated
23.01.1982 they exited/retired from the partnership firm by
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
receiving the valuable consideration from defendant Nos.3 to 6.
Defendant Nos.3 to 6 became the sole continuing partners of
the firm. In addition to executing deed of retirement dated
23.01.1982, Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy, his wife and children of
Sri. Ramaiah Reddy had also sworn to a joint affidavit
confirming the fact that they having retired from the firm.
4.8 It is also contented that on the suit schedule property
having been invested as the capital contribution of the firm, the
name of the firm was mutated in the revenue records in
Hongasandra Grama panchayat, which had issued 'No Objection
Certificate' in respect to the suit property to be used for
running poultry farm. The partnership firm was registered with
the Registrar of Firms. After retirement of Sri. Venkataswamy
Reddy, wife and children of Sri. Ramaiah Reddy, by executing
deed of retirement dated 23.01.1982, the change in the
partnership has been registered with the Registrar of Firms.
4.9 That later suit schedule property has been handed
over to one M/s. Chamundi Steel Re-rolling Mills for storing raw
materials.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
4.10 That Bangalore Development Authority had
proposed to acquire the suit property and had issued
preliminary notification dated 28.04.1998 to which defendant
Nos.3 to 6 had filed their objections. Which was well within the
knowledge of the plaintiffs and other landowners. Plaintiffs, as
such are not entitled to any share in the suit property. But the
same is filed in collusion with defendant Nos.1 and 2.
4.11 Subsequent to filing of the written statement,
plaintiffs got the suit amended to contend that the suit
schedule property being agricultural land could not have been
invested into a partnership firm and it was in violation of
provisions Sections 79-A, 79-B, 79-C and 80 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act and that the firm, M/s. Karnataka Agrerian
Poultry and Diary Firm was not competent to hold the suit
schedule property. As such, sought for additional relief of
declaration and delivered possession in that regard.
5. Based on the pleadings the trial Court framed the
following:
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
ISSUES
1) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the legal heirs of late
Sri Rajappa Reddy?
2) Whether plaintiffs prove that suit property is joint family
property consisting of themselves and defendant Nos.1 and 22?
3) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to a share in
the suit schedule property and if so to what share?
4) Whether defendant Nos.5 and 6 prove that widow & children
of late Sri Ramaiah Reddy had executed a partnership deed
dld:30. 10. 1980 and invested the suit property in the business
of partnership firm "Karnataka Agrarian Poultry and Diary Farm'
as their share capital?
5) Whether defendant Nos.5 and 6 prove that the widow and
children of late Sri Ramaiah Reddy have retired from the Firm
by executing a deed of retirement dated 23.1 1982?
6) Whether defendant Nos 1 and 2 are entitled to a share in the
suit property and if so to what share?
7) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought for?
8) What decree of order?
Additional issues
1) Whether suit of plaintiffs is, in time?
2) Whether defendant, Nos 5 and 6. prove that. suit of plaintiffs
is. bad for, non-joinder of necessary party?
3) Whether defendant Nos:5 and 6 prove that they had
perfected their title to suit property. by adverse possession?
4) Whether the Court fee paid by plaintiffs on their plaint is
proper and sufficient?
6. Plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked
9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. Defendant No.5 examined as
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
DW1 and exhibited 64 documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D64. Defendant
Nos.1 and 2 have got examined themselves as DW2 and DW3.
7. On appreciation of evidence, trial Court answered issue
Nos.1, 4, 5 and additional issue Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative.
issue Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 and additional issue No.1 and 4 in the
negative and consequently dismissed the suit.
8. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeals are filed
by the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 as noted
above.
9. Sri. Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in RFA No.294/2012 which is filed by defendant
No.2, taking this Court through the records, more particularly,
partnership deed produced at Ex.D61 dated 30.10.1980
submits;
(a) that the contents of the said document would reveal
that the parties did not intend to treat the suit schedule
property to be the capital contribution of the firm. He submits
that the parties had expressly agreed that partnership firm may
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
choose to purchase the property. He refers to clause-7 of the
said document in justification of his submission.
(b) He also refers to clause-16 of the said document to
submit that any partner desirous of retiring from the firm was
entitled to do so by giving a month's notice. In such an event,
the continuing partners may purchase the share of the retiring
partner. Thus, referring to clause-7 and Clause-16 he
vehemently submits that since there is no deed of conveyance
as contemplated under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908
has been brought into existence, there is no conveyance in the
eyes of law. Therefore, he submits that the defendant Nos.3 to
6 cannot claim the partnership firm has become owner of the
property. He also submits that the partnership firm is not a
legal entity. It survives and thrives only with the existence of
the partners. It cannot have its own independent existence.
Therefore, any contribution brought into the partnership firm in
the nature of immovable property has to be by way of deed of
conveyance.
(c) He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of ARM Group Enterprises Ltd., Vs.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
1
Waldorf Restaurant and others , at paragraph No.35 of the
said judgment, to contend that there shall be express or
implied contract between the parties to treat the immovable
property as the property of the firm and perusal of Ex.D61-
Partnership Deed, according to him would not indicate there
being any express or implied contract between the partners to
treat the suit schedule property as a partnership firm.
Therefore, he submits in the absence of any registered deed as
required in Section 17 of the Registration Act, there is no
conveyance in the eyes of law, as such the property remains
the property of Sri. Ramaiah Reddy, to which the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for the share herein.
10. Sri. B.C. Venkatesh, and Sri. Vishwanatha K, learned
counsels' appearing for the other appellants in RFA
Nos.196/2012 and 347/2014 adopts the same argument.
11. In response, Sri. V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos.10 to 12 in RFA Nos.294/2012 and
196/2012, respondent Nos.7 to 9 in RFA No.347/2014, who are
1
(2003) 6 SCC 423
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit,
submits as under:
(a) Justifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, more particularly its finding and conclusion arrived at on
issue No.4, relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sachin Jaiswal Vs. M/s. Hotel Alka Raje and
others in SLP (C) No.18717/2022 decided on 27.02.2025 .
In addition, he also relies upon the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. Juggilal Kamalapat reported
in AIR 1967 SC 401 and also the judgment of the High Court
of Madras in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority Vs. Chidambaram, Partner,Thachanallur Sugar
Mills and Distilleries and others reported in AIR 1970
MADRAS 5 .
(b) That the law with regard to vesting of the right, title
or interest in respect of an immovable property in the
partnership firm, brought in as a capital contribution by any
partner is well settled, warranting no further probe. He submits
that the partnership firm is capable of holding the property in
terms of Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
provided the parties have agreed that the immovable property
brought in by them to be treated as a capital contribution.
(c) That perusal of clause Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 of the
Partnership deed dated 30.10.1980 produced at Ex.D61 leaves
no doubt the parties indeed had expressly agreed the
immovable property, which is subject matter to the present suit
had been brought in as a capital contribution, which remains so
even after they having exited/retired from the partnership firm
in terms of a retirement deed.
Thus, he submits that trial Court has committed no error
in dismissing the suit, warranting interference at the hands of
this Court.
12. Heard and perused the records.
13. Points that arises for consideration are;
1. Whether the suit schedule property had been brought into
the partnership firm namely Karnataka Agrerian Poultry and
Dairy Farm by Smt. Papamma and Sri. Rajappa Reddy, the wife
and son of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy as their capital
contribution?
2. Whether the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have proved
the suit schedule property was not contributed into the
partnership firm and has remained as a family property?
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
3. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit?
14. Plaintiffs have not disputed, partnership deed dated
30.10.1980 at Ex.D61 executed by and between Smt.
Papamma and Sri. Rajappa Reddy, the wife and son of late Sri.
Ramaiah Reddy and daughters of Sri. Ramaiah Reddy namely
Smt. Indrani (shown as Smt. Indramma in the suit) and Smt.
Radhamma through and under whom, they are claiming share,
right, title and interest in the suit schedule property.
15. It is also not in dispute that the said partnership
firm was registered. Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act,
1932 reads as under:
''14. The property of the firm.—
Subject to contract between the partners, the property of the
firm includes all property and rights and interests in property
originally brought into the stock of the firm, or acquired, by
purchase or otherwise, by or for the firm, or for the purposes
and in the course of business of the firm, and includes also the
goodwill of the business. Unless the contrary intention appears,
property and rights and interests in property acquired with
money belonging to the firm are deemed to have been acquired
for the firm.''
16. Thus, unless otherwise agreed between the parties or
unless contrary intention appears, the property brought in as a
capital contribution or business of a firm shall be treated as a
property of the firm.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
17. Clause 5, 6, 7, 8 and 16 of the Partnership deed
dated 30.10.1980, which is relied upon both learned counsel for
the plaintiffs as well as the defendants read as under:
'' 5. Before entering into the partnership the party of the II part
has valued the land at Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty
Thousand) only and has brought the same in partnership by
way of their capital contribution.
6. The party of the II party shall invest in the business a sum
of Rs.1,50,000/-
7. The partnership if it decided may acquire and hold properties
in the name or name of the one or more of its partners and no
in that individual capacity.
8. The partner hereby mutually agrees that the property of the
firm includes all property, rights and interest in the property
brought in by the partners at the time of commencement of this
partnership, stock of the firm and property acquired by the firm
from its funds, and includes also the good-will of the business.
All personal rights and interest if any of the individual partners
shall stand extinguished and it shall form part and parcel of the
firm, the individual rights if any shall merge with the
partnership firm.
16. if any partners desirous if retire from the partnership
he/she will be entitled to do so by giving one month's written
notice to the other partners. The out-going partner or partner
shall not entitled to assign his/her share to any stranger,
However the continuing partners may purchase the share of the
retiring o\partner/s for the benefit of the firm.''
18. Clearly, descendants of Sri. Abbaiah, namely Sri.
Venkataswamy Reddy, his daughter-in-law Smt.Papamma and
Sri. Rajappa Reddy (wife and son of late Sri. Ramaiah Reddy)
respectively and others had consciously become partners of the
firm and had contributed the suit schedule property as their
capital contribution valued the same at Rs.1,30,000/-. In
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
addition, they had also invested amount as found in Clause-6.
Clause-8 provides for an express ''agreement'' that had been
entered into between the parties to treat that all the properties
of the firm including properties brought in by the partners at
the time of commencement of the firm as partnership property
and all personal rights and interests, if any, of the individual
partners stood extinguished forming the same as part and
parcel of the assets of the firm. This being the only meaning
that can be assigned to the contract referred to hereinabove,
any other meaning would not be consonance with the facts and
circumstances of the case, more particularly, when there is no
dispute raised by Sri. Venkataswamy Reddy.
19. The trial Court having taken into consideration the
factual and legal aspect of the matter, has found that the suit
schedule property had been indeed brought in as a capital
contribution by the wife and children of late Sri. Ramaiah
Reddy, who are the plaintiffs. Therefore challenge mounted by
them to wriggle out of the consequences of they having
brought the immovable property to the firm has been negated.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of ARM Group Enterprises
Ltd., (Supra) which is relied upon by the appellants, at
paragraph No.35 has held as under:
35. Under Section 14 of the Partnership Act, 1932, in the
absence of an agreement to the contrary, property exclusively
belonging to a person, on his entering into partnership with
others, does not become a property of the partnership merely
because it is used for the business of the partnership. Such
property will become property of the partnership only if there is
an agreement - express or implied - that the property was,
under the agreement of the partnership, to be treated as a
property of the partnership.
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. There cannot be any doubt, that should there be an
express agreement amongst the partners to treat the property
as the firm's property, it shall be treated as a property of the
firm, which is the case at hand.
21. As regards, the requirement of registration of a
document of conveyance in favour of partnership firm as
contended by the appellant is concerned, Hon'ble Apex Court in
its judgment rendered in the case of the Commissioner of
Income Tax, West Bengal (Supra) at paragraph Nos.8 and 9,
adverting to the question with regard to requirement of
registration of a immovable property, which was brought in as
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
a capital contribution for the purpose of Section 17(1) of the
Registration Act reads as under:
''8. It appears to us that, in this case, the submissions that were made on
behalf of the Commissioner before the High Court and which have been made
before us have ignored the effect of the important relevant documents and have
unnecessarily placed too much reliance on the Deed of Relinquishment. The
Tribunal found that a Kamla Town Trust had been constituted of which the three
Singhania Brothers were the Trustees. The Tribunal also found that a deed of
partnership was executed so as to constitute the firm Juggilal Kamalapat,
consisting of two partners, the Kamala Town Trust, represented by the three
trustees, and Jhabbarmal Saraf. Their shares in the profits and losses were also
specified in the deed of partnership. There was the further finding by the
Income Tax Officer that the Kamla Town Trust, which entered into the
partnership, actually introduced a sum of Rs 50,000 as its capital in this
partnership firm. On these facts by themselves, it should have been held that a
valid partnership had come into existence.
9. So far as the deed of relinquishment is concerned, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the Commissioner has not been able to show to us any provision of
law, or any decision of a court laying down that a deed of relinquishment
executed by partners of a firm in respect of their share and interest in a firm
required registration, in case the firm owned immovable properties. In this
connection, learned Counsel for the respondent firm brought to our notice a
recent decision of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa
(dead) [(1966) 3 SCR 400] where the question that came up for consideration
was whether the interest of a partner in partnership assets comprising of
movable as well as immovable property should be treated as movable or
immovable property for the purposes of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act,
1908. The court upheld the view of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishtappa [ILR 1959 AP p. 387]
Mudholkar, J., speaking for this Court held:“It seems to us that looking to the
scheme of the Indian Act, no other view can reasonably be taken. The whole
concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose
to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property.
Once that is done, whatever is brought in would cease to be the exclusive
property of the person who brought it in. It would be the trading asset of the
partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their
share in the joint venture of the business of partnership. The person who
brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive
right over any property which he has brought in, much less over any other
partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his right even to the
extent of his share in the business of the partnership. As already stated, his
right during the subsistence of the partnership is to get his share of profits from
time to time as may be agreed upon among the partners and after the
dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from partnership of the
value of his share in the net partnership assets as on the date of dissolution or
retirement after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges”.
On this basis, the ultimate decision was that a deed, evidencing the transfer of
an interest of a partner in partnership assets, does not require registration even
though the partnership assets are comprised of movable as well as immovable
property.''
(Emphasis Supplied)
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7673
RFA No.294 of 2012
C/W RFA No.196 of 2012
RFA No.347 of 2014
HC-KAR
22. The aforesaid exposition of law has been consistently
followed even as late as in the judgment of Sachin Jaiswal
(Supra).
23. Thus two primary contentions urged by the appellant,
assailing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court
cannot be countenanced in the light of the aforesaid factual and
legal aspect of the matter.
24. In view of deletion of provisions of Sections 79 and
79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, have been omitted by
Act 56 of 2020 retrospectively, the contention urged in this
regard is not adverted.
25. Appeals failed, same are dismissed .
26. Judgment and decree dated 15.10.2011 passed by
the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore
City is confirmed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38