PATASIBAI Vs. RATANLAL
LAWS(SC)-1990-1-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 30,1990

Patasibai Appellant
VERSUS
RATANLAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

C E SULOCHANA VS. C E SATHYANARAYANA REDDY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-411] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH BANSAL VS. SHIV KUMAR PAL [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-170] [REFERRED TO]
ROOPA DEVI KURREY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHILAI WIRES LIMITED INDUSTRIAL AREA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
YUVRAJ PRITHVIRAJSINGHJI VS. MAHARANI RAJENDRAKUNVERBA [LAWS(GJH)-1996-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
P R SUKESHWALA VS. DEVADATTA V S KERKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1994-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C EX , CHANDIGARH VS. VARINDER AGRO CHEMICALS LTD [LAWS(P&H)-2005-8-142] [REFERRED]
COLLECTOR JABALPUR VS. CHANDRAWATI SARAF [LAWS(MPH)-2013-9-210] [REFERRED TO]
SICPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KAPIL KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-271] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KAUSHISH VS. D C KAUSHISH [LAWS(DLH)-1991-9-21] [REFERRED 2.]
NRIPENDRA KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. SURENDER LAL AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
A Sreedevi VS. Vicharapu Ramakrishna Gowd [LAWS(MAD)-2005-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
PARVATIBEN JIVAN GOVIND MISTRI (PARMAR) VS. MISTRI VALAMJI RAMJI [LAWS(GJH)-2018-12-82] [REFERRED TO]
NAVIN GRAHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD VS. SHYAM PRAKASH SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
N.RENUKA DEVI VS. E.LALITHA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-243] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LAXMI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. G V MOHAN [LAWS(APH)-2005-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
QAMAR AHMAD VS. PRABHU MANOHAR GOPALKRISHNA PARRIKAR [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
B MRUTHYUNJAYAPPA VS. GURUMURTHY [LAWS(KAR)-2008-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
C LAL AND SONS VS. WASUDHIR FOUNDATION [LAWS(DLH)-1997-3-32] [REFERRED]
PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
C E SATHYANARAYANA REDDI VS. C E SULOCHANA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-196] [REFERRED TO]
K K Swaminathan VS. Srinivasagam [LAWS(MAD)-2003-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. RAMESHWAR DASS BISHAN DAYAL [LAWS(DLH)-1995-9-9] [REFERRED]
ASOKA GHOSH VS. EAST END TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-1990-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
JALARAM FLEXO LAMINATES PRIVATE LTD. VS. POLYPET FLEXIBLE PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-188] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV K. MEHTA VS. REKHA H. SHETH [LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI DEVELOPERS, KARMANGHAT, R.R. DISTRICT VS. G. RAVINDER RAO [LAWS(APH)-2018-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI AGARWAL VS. GOVIND RAJ SHETTY AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-208] [REFERRED TO]
RAAHUL FOUNDATIONS PRIVATE LTD VS. S.CHANDRABABU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-219] [REFERRED TO]
K K MODI VS. K N MODI [LAWS(DLH)-1998-4-78] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)The short question involved is the maintainability of the suit which gives rise to this appeal. The appellants contend that the suit is not maintainable even on the plaint averments. The trial court held the suit to be maintainable and the High court has dismissed the appellants revision affirming that view. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(3.)The appellants are the legal representatives of Motilal who purchased the disputed property, ftamely, 'goyal Talkies at Kamptee in the year 1946. The said Motilal entered into a partnership on 31/12/1953 with respondent Ratanlal representing the joint family firm "m/s Ratanlal Darndoolal and Bros. " for the purpose of running the cinema business in 'goyal Talkies'. Some disputes having arisen between the parties, the said Motilal together with his wife and children filed Civil Suit No. 19-A of 195 5/08/1955 in the court of Civil Judge, Class I, Nagpur, against respondent Ratanlal as defendant I, the firm "m/s Darndoolal and Bros. " as defendant 2 and one Puranmal as defendant 3. The suit was for the dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and ancillary reliefs. On discovery of the mis description of defendant 2 firm, an application was made by the plaintiff for correction of that misdescription. The misdescription being obvious, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs application on 19/08/1955 permitting defendant 2 firm to be correctly described as "m/s Ratanlal Darndoolal and Bros" instead of "m/s Darndoolal and Bros". It appears that the correction even though permitted was not actually incorporated in the plaint. However, the parties were not misled in any manner by the misdescription of defendant 2 made initially in the plaint which is evident from the fact that defendant 1 Ratanlal who filed the separate written statement in the suit on behalf of defendant 2 also correctly described defendant 2 as "ratanlal Darndoolal and Bros". This suit was compromised between the parties and a compromise petition dated 20/02/1956 signed by the plaintiff, Motilal, Ratanlal for himself as defendant 1 and also on behalf of defendant 2 firm, and the counsel for defendants 1 and 2 was filed in the trial court. This compromise was recorded by the court on 5/03/1956 after the statements of defendant 1 Ratanlal and the counsel for defendant 2 firm were recorded accepting the compromise. One of the agreed terms was that defendant 3 Puranmal should be discharged from the suit apparently because he had no interest in the suit. According to the terms of the compromise, plaintiff was to pay to defendants 1 and 2 a sum of Rs 15,700. 00 in full satisfactionfaction of their claim subject to final accounting, which included the sum of Rs. 2,600. 00 paid to Puranmal by defendants 1 and 2. It was also agreed that on payment of this amount by the plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2 within the specified period, the partnership would be deemed to be dissolved and that defendants 1 and 2 gave up all their rights including the interest acquired by them from defendant 3, Puranmal under the sale deed executed in their favour. It was agreed that the plaintiff would be entitled to possession of the talkies immediately on payment of the amount due to defendants 1 and 2. The receiver Shri K. S. Mishra, advocate was required to act in terms of the compromise between the parties which required confirmation of accounts from the account books of the partnership and thereafter distribution of the surplus between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.