PEOPLES SHOE CO Vs. A KAMESWARAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1992-4-54
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 21,1992

P.UMA SAMBASIVA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
ANUMALA KAMESWARAMMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SIVARAMAKRISHNAYYA VS. KASIVISWANADHAM [REFERRED TO]
SHIVARAM REDDY VS. SANGAREDDY ALIAS SANGAPPA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 23-8-1991 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in I.A. No. 3449 of 1991 in O.S. No. 18 of 1982 refusing to recast the issue placing onus of proof on the plaintiff 'relating to retirement' from the partnership with effect from 1-12-1978 pursuant to her letter dated 27-11-1978.
(2.)The plaintiff has instituted the suit claiming the relief of dissolution of the firm and for rendition of accounts on the premise that the partnership was subsisting, while the defendants raised a contestion that the suit was not tenable as the plaintiff was no more a partner with effect from 1-12-1978 due to her retirement.
(3.)The grant of relief is based on the main issue i.e. the continuance of the plaintiff as a partner in the firm concerned. If she was continuing as a partner as on the date of presentation of the plaint, she would be eligible for the relief 'as sought for. If she had retired as mentioned in her letter dated 27-11-1978, she would not be eligible for any relief, as the very retirement would non-suit her. In her pleadings in the plaint she took a stand that her signatures were obtained on blank papers; thus indicating that the letter of retirement dated 27- 11-1978 pleaded by the defendants was a manipulated one and that she is not the author of the contents of the said letter dated 27-11-1978. On the other hand, the defendants in the written statement have pleaded that the plaintiff had executed the letter of retirement dated 27-11-1978 and denied the allegation that they had obtained the signature of the plaintiff on the blank papers, be it stamped or ordinary. As such, the triable issue was whether the plaintiff had retired from the partner ship with effect from 1-12-1978 and the crucial document in this regard is the letter dated 27-11-1978 pleaded by the defendants. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the said letter did not contain her signature. It is her cafe that though her signature appears on the said letter, the same was obtained on the blank paper and the authorship of the contents of the document cannot be attributed to her.
;


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