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