P. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Vs. PATHANGE POULTRY FARM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed against judgment dtd. 15/12/2011 passed by the trial court, by which objections preferred by the appellant under Sec. 24 of the Act has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that appellant as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners of respondent No. 1-Firm, which is a registered partnership firm incorporated in the year 1972. The respondent No. 1 firm was re-constituted vide partnership deed dtd. 15/5/2000. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1-Firm was re-constituted several times. The appellant had retired from the Firm on 15/5/2005.

(3.) One Sri. P.J. Vishwanath Rao viz., brother of the original appellant viz., P. Gopal Krishan Rao vide registered sale deed dtd. 30/6/1982 purchased land measuring 2 acres and 15 guntas and 0.06 guntas of Sy. No. 53/1 and Sy. No. 53/2 situated in Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The appellant vide registered sale deed dtd. 3/3/1982 purchased land measuring 3 acres and 15 guntas of Sy. No. 336/2 situated in Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. One of the partners of the firm viz., late P. Dayarao died on 10/3/1983 and therefore, the firm was reconstituted on 25/3/1983. Respondent No. 5 vide registered sale deed dtd. 25/9/1983 purchased the land measuring 1 acre and 25 guntas of Sy. No. 337/2 of situated in Bogadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. However, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 issued a public notice dtd. 21/2/2006 stating that the aforesaid respondents intend to enter into a Development Agreement and agreement to sale with regard to schedule properties and objections to the same were invited. The land bearing Sy. No. 336/2, which was claimed to have been purchased by the appellant was also included. The appellant thereupon submitted an objection on 2/3/2006, in which it was stated that the appellant was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 336/2 and had 1/5th share in respect of remaining lands. The dispute therefore, arose between the parties viz., whether the firm during the course of business has acquired immovable properties like land building, poultry shed, machinery and other equipments or whether the properties were purchased by the father of the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and therefore, whether the appellant had an equal share in the remaining property.