Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

Lachhman Das and Anr.

Mt. Gulab Devi and Ors.

[AIR 1936 All 270 ]

BY -
This case generally deals with Section 14 of Indian Partnership Act 1932.

Here Plaintiff-Respondent is Mt. Gulab Devi [wife of the deceased partner Ram Chander]

Here the Defendant-Appellant is Lachhman Das and his brother Rameshwar Das [main partners along with
Ram Chander] and the others are transferees of parts of the property
Facts of the Case

This appeal was raised by the suit that was decided by the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh. This suit was earlier
instituted by plaintiff-respondent Gulab Devi fro the partition of a certain property of which the details were set
forth in Schedule A, B and C in the plaint.

The plaintiff-respondent alleged that she had inherited a share in property of her deceased husband Ram
Chander. The defendant appellants here were Lachhman Das , Rameshwar Das and his son Nathu (as defendants
1, 2 and 3) and the rest 7 defendants were the transferees of the parts of property under the deed executed after
the death of Ram Chander.

According to Gulab Devi , both Lachhman Das and Rameshwar Das were joint owners of property along with
her husband. The property in this suit also included the interests created by 3 simple deeds of mortgages.
The 3 mortgages were respectively dated that is -

19th February 1920 [item 1, Schedule B]

5th November 1919 [ item 2 , Schedule B]

11th January 1921 [ item 2 , Schedule C]

Since the lower Court held that the first two mortgages in Schedule B were redeemed on 27th May 1925
(item 1) and 23rd May 1920 (item 2) respectively and also the suit for recovery for a share in the interests
created by them is barred by limitation , hence this suit was dismissed.

It was also appeared that the Subordinate Judge had barred the interest created by the 3rd mortgage under
the misapprehension that it was also redeemed under the same conditions just like first two mortgages.
But the Subordinate Judge gave plaintiff the first instance of decree for the partition of all properties
except the interests created under the 3 mortgages.

The Subordinate Judge delivered the judgement on 13th July 1932. Due to not being satisfied with the
decision , on 15th July and on 21st July as well, the plaintiff-respondent made an application under the
Section 151 and 152 of CPC. It was pointed out by the applicant [i.e. plaintiff-respondent] that learned
Judge has dismissed the suit under misapprehension.

When the learned Judge accepted the application and passed an order for reviewing of the suit
regarding the third mortgage. This led to another appeal 458 of 1932 instituted by the defendant-
appellants and again on the plaintiffs side as well another appeal 379 of 1932 was instituted.
Bagar Mal

Kanhaiya Lal
Lokman Das

Lachhman Das Rameshwar Ram Chander


Whether or not the properties mentioned in the plaint or any of them can be described as the partnership
property of either of two firms in which Ram Chander , Lachhman Das and Rameshwar Das were partners.

Whether this property was originally brought into partnership stock or was brought by money belonging to
the partnership or for the purposes of the partnership and if it was, whether there was any special contract
varying the terms of the section.

Whether it was the intention of the partners that the property in existence at the time of partition should be
regarded as partnership property or as their joint property apart from partnership.
Contention of parties
Contentions Of Defendant-Appellant

The contented that the property in the suit was the partnership property within the section [
i.e. Section 14 of the Act].

Also there was an entry in the ledger which originally meant that the properties were no
longer regarded as assets of the firm but they returned to the partner to hold in their separate
rights as per their shares. Based on this entry , appellants contended that no interference
should be made on it against them, as it was practice of the firm to keep records in a way
which does not show assets which were acquired out of money of firm.
Contentions of Plaintiff- Respondent
The contention raised by the plaintiff-respondent was that accounts kept Katni Mundwara were not
taken as the whole partnership account but rather as accounts of the three joint owners.

Regarding the leases, it was contended on the behalf of plaintiff that the leases were granted for the
renewal of previous leases which had been in the favour of Lachhman Das and Rameshwar Das and
that Ram Chander also have that share in the interests created by them.

Section 14 of Indian Partnership Act 1932 which is The property of the firm states that- "Subject to the
contract between the partners , the property include of the firm includes all property and rights and
interests in property originally brought into stock of the firm , or acquired by purchase or otherwise , by
or for the firm, or for the purposes and in the course of business of the firm and includes also the
goodwill of the business.

Unless the contrary intention appears , property and rights and interests in property acquired with money
belonging to the firm , are deemed to have been acquired for the firm.
Based on this section , both Judge James Joseph Whittlesea and Judge Chaudhari Niamat Ullah agreed and held that

Partnership property includes that property which is brought originally into stock .

Or property bought with the money belonging to partnership .

Or the property was acquired for the purposes of the partnership business.

The share of each partner in the partnership property is value of his or her original contribution increased or diminished by
his share of profit or loss.

All joint property of partners is not partnership property apart from the property only answering the section 14 of the Act.

Mere use of property for the purpose of the partnership business doesnt necessarily mean that it should be treated as a
partnership property. It depends upon the agreement between the partners that whether or not a certain property should be
treated as partnership property or not.
The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal no. 379 of 1932 as well as defendants appeal no. 458 of

But in appeal no. 327 of 1932 the High Court modified the decision of the Lower Court by saying that
although the plaintiff is entitled to get her one-half share in properties no. 1 to 5 in Schedule A ,but she
is not entitled to any interests in quarry rights which was created by the leases granted by the
Government of the Central Province.

The Court also held that the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits of Rs. 2100 from defendants 1 to 3 for
a period of 3 years and that amount of mesne profits would be calculated and included in the final
decree for the partition.
Also the respondents would be given their costs in appeals no. 379 and 458 of 1932, The Court also held
they would give defendant-appellants one-third of their costs in the appeal no. 327 of 1932.

Even the plaintiff would receive two-third in the lower court from defendants 1 to 3 . They did not
interfere the order of lower court that defendants 4 to 10 shall bear their own costs.