JAYAMMA Vs. ADHYAKSHA ZILLA PANCHAYAT MANDYA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioners is that the husband of the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent constituted a partnership firm. THE house property bearing Assessment Nos.704 and 704-A situated at Kottati Hobli, Karasvadi Village, was owned and possessed by late Chikkanna. During his lifetime by virtue of a settlement deed dated 7-5-1966 two properties were settled in favour of the 1st petitioner. THE 2nd and the 3rd petitioner are the children of the 1st petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said firm came to be dissolved by virtue of a dissolution deed dated 7-7-1993. Consequently, the resolution dated 19-2-1996 was passed by the Village Panchayat. THE katha of the property was transferred to the name of the 1st petitioner and an endorsement to that effect was also issued on 7-5-1996. there after, the 5th respondent filed an appeal under Section 273 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 challenging the resolution dated 19-2-1996 which was passed resolving the entire katha in the name of the 1st petitioner. THE said appeal was allowed by an order dated 26-12-2002 and consequently the said resolution was set aside. On appeal by the petitioner before the 1st respondent the same was rejected on 30-5-2005. THEse two orders are under question in this writ petition.

(2.) SRI. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the property owned and possessed by the 1st petitioner and earlier to death of her husband did not form part of the partnership properties. They continue to remain as individual properties of the partner SRI Chikkanna and the status of which is undisputed. He further contends that as a consequence of the settlement deed, the name of the petitioner was entered by virtue of the resolution dated 19-2-1996. He therefore contends that the property being an individual property of the petitioner, the direction that the katha be entered in the name of the partnership firm is not only opposed to facts but also opposed to law.

(3.) IT is an established position in law that until and unless the property stands vested in the partnership either by consent or otherwise which is duly recorded, no property could be claimed to be the property of the partnership. In the instant case, there is no documentation to the effect that the individual property of the petitioners have stood transferred as the property of the partnership firm. In the absence of any documentation which regard to the nature of the property, the claim of the petitioners that it is an individual property requires to be sustained. Even in a partnership the individual partners are entitled in law to hold on to their respective properties and would not be compelled to convert the individual properties into the properties of the partnership only because of a deed of partnership between the partners. Therefore it would be erroneous to hold that the individual properties would automatically become the property of the partnership form. In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the authorities and a direction to make the katha in the name of the partnership firm is opposed to law. For the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the 3rd respondent on 26-12-2002 vide Annexure-F and the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 30-5-2005 vide Annexure G are hereby quashed. Rule made absolute. No Costs.