GANGADHAR MADHAVRAO BIDWAI Vs. HANMANTRAO VYANKATRAO MUNGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for consideration is whether the recital in a deed of dissolution of partnership, Ext. 48, that Survey Plot No. 699 was a partnership property was admissible in evidence.

(2.) Both the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent were partners in M/s. Maharashtra Metal Manufacturing Company. The partnership was formed in 1952 and it lasted till 1959. In 1955 the plot in dispute was purchased by the defendant. At the time of dissolution a partition deed, Ext. 46, was executed. A Deed of Dissolution, Ext. 47, was executed on 1-8-1961 and another deed, Ext. 48, was executed on 1-9-1961. In all these deeds, this plot was mentioned. In the last deed the recital read as under:

(3.) Shri Ashoke Sen, learned Senior Counsel urged that the law is settled that no registration was required of the partnership property as it did not result in transfer of any interest. Reliance was placed on (S.V. Chandra Pandian v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar) 1. The learned counsel urged that in any case section 14 of the partnership Act indicated that any property acquired subsequently becomes partnership property. Shri Tarkunde, learned Senior Counsel supported the findings recorded by the High Court. He submitted that the documents i.e. Exts. 46, 47 and 48 did not establish that Plot No. 699 was partnership property. He urged that in Ext. 46 the mala (garden land) and the present suit property had been separately mentioned. Therefore, the High Court having found documentary evidence to be insufficient or inadmissible examined the oral evidence and held that the land was not partnership property as such it was not an appropriate case in which this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The learned counsel argued that the respondent having proved that the land was purchased by him, it was for the appellant to prove that the property belonged to both.