{"id":13181,"date":"2020-10-19T08:13:15","date_gmt":"2020-10-19T08:13:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/addanki-narayanappa-v-bhaskar-krishnappa-air-1966-sc-1300-1966-scr-3-400\/"},"modified":"2020-10-19T08:13:15","modified_gmt":"2020-10-19T08:13:15","slug":"addanki-narayanappa-v-bhaskar-krishnappa-air-1966-sc-1300-1966-scr-3-400","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/addanki-narayanappa-v-bhaskar-krishnappa-air-1966-sc-1300-1966-scr-3-400\/","title":{"rendered":"Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskar Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300\/ 1966 SCR (3) 400"},"content":{"rendered":"
\u00a0<\/div>\n
\n

Facts<\/h3>\n

The members of two Joint Hindu families entered into a partnership for carrying on\u00a0 business. Each family had\u00a0 half share in\u00a0 that business. The\u00a0 capital of the partnership consisted, among other things, of some lands belonging to the families as well as lands later acquired by the firm. The members of one family filed suit in 1949 for dissolution of the partnership and the taking of accounts.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The members of the second family raised the defense that the partnership was already dissolved in 1936 and that accounts were then settled between the two families. In support of that plea, they relied upon an unregistered document, which showed that the partnership had come to an end. It was contended by the appellants, that since the partnership assets included immovable property and the document recorded the relinquishment by the members of the plaintiff family of their interest in those assets, the document was compulsorily registerable under Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 and that since it was unregistered,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 it was inadmissible as evidence to prove the dissolution as well as the settlement\u00a0\u00a0 of accounts.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Issue<\/h3>\n

The question which arose for consideration was whether the interest of a partner\u00a0 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?<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Held<\/h3>\n

The concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose\u00a0 \u00a0to bring in as capital, money and\/or property including immovable property. Once that is done, whatever is brought in would cease to be the asset of the<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

person who brought it in. It would be the asset of the partnership in which all\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the partners would have interest in proportion to their share in the business of partnership. The person who brought it in would, therefore, not be able\u00a0 to claim\u00a0 or exercise any exclusive right over any property which he had brought in, much less over any other partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his\u00a0 right even to the extent of his share in the business of the partnership. His right during the subsistence of the partnership was to get his\u00a0 share of profits from time to time as may be agreed upon among the partners and after the dissolution\u00a0\u00a0 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\u00a0 retirement\u00a0 after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges. It is true that even during the subsistence of the partnership a partner may assign his share to another. In that case what the assignee would get would be only that which is permitted by<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. 29(1), that is to say, the right to receive the share of profits of the assignor and accept the account of profits agreed to by the partners.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The karar executed in favour of one of the families, only recorded the fact that the partnership had come to an end. It could not be said to convey any immovable property by a partner to another, expressly or by necessary implication, nor was there any express reference to any immovable property, except a recital of an event which had taken place earlier. Therefore, the unregistered deed of release\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 by one family of its share in the partnership was admissible as evidence, even though the partnership owned immovable property.<\/p>\n

    The interest of a partner in partnership assets, comprising of movable as well as immovable property, should be treated as movableproperty. Right of a partner during the subsistence of the partnership, was to get his share of the profits from time to time, as was agreed upon among the\u00a0 partners, and on\u00a0 the\u00a0 dissolution\u00a0 of the partnership, or retirement from the partnership, right of the partner is toreceive the money value of his share in the net partnership assets. During the subsistence of the partnership, no partner could deal with any portion of the firm\u2019s property as his own. Nor could he assign his interests in a specific item\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of the partnership property to anyone though the same may be in his\/her name. During subsistence of partnership, a partner does not have right on any specific asset and his right is only a movable property even if the partnership owns immovable property too.<\/p>\n

    Reference was made to judgment of the Hon\u2019ble Madras High Court in Chitturi Venkataratnam\u00a0 v.\u00a0 Siram Subba Rao (1926) Appeal No. 42 & 43 of 1925 (Mad)<\/em><\/strong>,\u00a0 in which judgment, after discussing certain English decisions and the decisions in Sudarsanam Maistri v. Narasimhulu Maistri (1902) ILR 25 Mad 149 <\/em><\/strong>and Gopala Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar I.L.R. 45 Mad. 378 (P.C.) [1922] A.C.1 <\/em><\/strong>and the opinion of Jardine J in Joharmal\u2019s case I.L.R. 17 Bom. 235, it was held that an<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    unregistered deed of release by a partner of his share in the partnership business\u00a0\u00a0 is admissible as evidence, even where thepartnership owns immovable property.<\/p>\n

    Editorial:<\/strong> This is one of the oft referred to judgments for understanding the concept of partnership, assets of partnership and rights of partners in property of the partnership.<\/p>\n

    Reference can also be made to the decision of Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in S.V. Chandra Pandian v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar (1995) 212 ITR 592 (SC) where considering the above decision, the Supreme Court held that share of a partner in property of the firm, whether immovable or movable, should be treated as movable property. Partners cannot deal with the firm\u2019s property in their personal capacity, even though for sake of convenience it is standing in their individual name.<\/p>\n

    \u201cWhat is true of the individual will be tomorrow true of the whole nation, if individuals will but refuse to lose heart and hope.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

    – Mahatma Gandhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Indian Partnership Act, 1932
    \nS. 5: Partnership not created by status – Property of the firm – Interest of a partner in partnership assets, whether a moveable or immoveable property \u2013 Partner\u2019s rights during the existence of the partnership \u2013 Partner\u2019s rights after the dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from the partnership firm – Unregistered deed of release in a partnership firm whether admissible as evidence even though the partnership owned immoveable property – [S. 12, 14, 15, 29, 31, 48,\u00a0 Indian Registration Act,\u00a0 1908 ,S. 7(1), 37 , 48]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3qB","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13181"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13181\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13182,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13181\/revisions\/13182"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}