SRI RAMA LINGESWARA RICE MILL AND OTHERS Vs. VEMURI VENKATARATNAM
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Sri Rama Lingeswara Rice Mill And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 44/66 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, whose suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale by payment of the consideration including interest and damages amounting to Rs. 28617-50 from the defendant, with a charge on the suit property, was dismissed.
(2.) The dispute is with regard to the execution of the sale deed in pursuance of an agreement of sale entered into by the partners of the 1st plaintiff firm with the sole defendant for the purchase of the rice mill belonging to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs 2 to 7 along with the fathers of plaintiffs 10 to 11, the husband of 12th plaintiff-and another Chinta Raghavaiah entered into an instrument of partnership Ex. A. 3 dated 9-4-1948 for the construction and running of a rice mill by name Sri Ramalingeswara Rice Mill at Illuru in Krishna district, agreeing thereunder to take as partner one of the legal representatives of a partner in case of his demise, with the consent of the other heirs and subsequently on the death of the original partner Ammireddy Ramamoorty, his son 10th plaintiff, on the death of another partner Varda Apparao, his son 11th plaintiff his widow 12th plaintiff, were taken in and recognised as partners. 8th and 9th plaintiffs became partners in their purchase of the one anna share each from Chinta Raghavaiah. Thus, the present plaintiffs have filed the suit as the partners of the firm claiming that on 31-1-1963 the defendant agreed to purchase the mill for a consideration of Rs. 25000/- and executed the agreement to purchase Ex. A. 13 and had paid a sum of Rs. 4100/- as earnest money, took possession of the property agreeing to pay the balance by 9-3-1963 and in default to pay 12% p.a. interest on the monies due, that except making a payment of Rs. 2000/- to the 2nd plaintiff on 9-4-1963, he has not paid the balance.
(3.) The defendant, on the other hand, admitting the agreement to purchase, had contended that the property was not the property of the firm, but of the co-owners, that on the death of any of the partners, his share vested in all his heirs and not in any one of them and there fore unless all of them executed a sale deed in his favour, he would not get a marketable title to the suit land and machinery free from reasonable doubt, that the suit also, filed by only the alleged partners, is not maintainable, that the payment of Rs. 2000/- made by him was not to the alleged firm, but to the 2nd plaintiff as a loan in his individual capacity, for the recovery of which he had filed a suit against the 2nd plaintiff, that in any case this claim is barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any damages or interest.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.