Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Nasik dated 3.10.1992, which reversed the trial court's decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff-respondent, Ratanlal Kesharchand Bothra, filed a suit for recovery of possession of House No.468 at Village Ghoti, Taluka Igatpuri, and for damages from 1.5.1975 to 30.4.1978 amounting to Rs.7,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that one Keru Narayan Sonawane (deceased) was his partner in running a flour mill and oil mill, and the suit premises were used for the mill without rent. The partnership allegedly ran from 23.6.1966 to 31.10.1973 when it was dissolved. After Keru Narayan's death on 12.8.1975, his heirs (defendants) refused to vacate. The defendants contended that the suit premises were let out to Keru Narayan at Rs.30 per month, making him a tenant, and denied any partnership. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove partnership and that the defendants were tenants. The appellate court reversed, decreeing the suit. In second appeal, the High Court framed the substantial question of law: whether the suit based on an unregistered partnership was maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The court held that the partnership deed was unregistered and thus the plaintiff could not enforce any right arising from it. The court also found that the defendants had consistently paid rent at Rs.30 per month, which the plaintiff accepted, establishing a landlord-tenant relationship. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate decree, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Partnership Act - Unregistered Partnership - Section 69(2) - Bar on Suit - The plaintiff's suit for possession based on an alleged partnership was not maintainable as the partnership deed was unregistered, and Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 bars any suit to enforce a right arising from a contract of partnership. The court held that the plaintiff could not rely on the partnership to claim possession. (Paras 5-6) B) Landlord and Tenant - Relationship - Payment and Acceptance of Rent - The defendants' consistent payment of rent at Rs.30 per month and the plaintiff's acceptance of rent established a landlord-tenant relationship. The court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant is determined by payment and acceptance of rent, not by an unregistered partnership. (Paras 7-8) C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Partnership - The burden of proving the partnership was on the plaintiff, who failed to discharge it. The court noted that the plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence of partnership, and the oral evidence was insufficient. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for possession based on an alleged partnership is maintainable when the partnership deed is unregistered, and whether the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant or partners.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Nasik dated 3.10.1992, and restored the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit.
Law Points
- Partnership Act
- 1932
- Section 69(2) bars suit based on unregistered partnership
- Unregistered partnership cannot be proved in court
- Landlord-tenant relationship can be established by payment and acceptance of rent
- Burden of proof on party asserting partnership
