Case Study: Addanki Narayanappa and Ors. v. Bhaskara Krishtappa and Ors.

By Yousuf Khan 12 Minutes Read

“A partner’s interest in the firm’s assets during the subsistence of the partnership is not specific and cannot be claimed over particular property, but only in a share of the profits and the net proceeds after dissolution.”

Citation: AIR 1966 SC 1300, [1966] 3 SCR 400

Date of Judgment: 21^st January, 1966

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. Sarkar (J), J.R. Mudholkar (J), K.N. Wanchoo (J)

Facts

• This case arose between two Hindu joint families—the Addanki family and the Bhaskara family—who had entered into a partnership for conducting business in hulling rice and decorticating groundnuts. Both families contributed equally to the partnership’s capital, which consisted of both movable and immovable property. Some of the property, including land, was contributed by the families at the time of formation, while other properties were acquired later by the firm during the business operation.
• In 1949, the Addanki family (plaintiffs) filed a suit in the Subordinate Court of Chittoor, seeking a declaration that the partnership properties belonged equally to both families. They requested either partition of the properties or, alternatively, dissolution of the partnership and settlement of accounts. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to a specific share of the immovable properties of the firm.
• The Bhaskara family (defendants) contended that the partnership had already been dissolved in 1936 via a settlement agreement, also known as a karar, and claimed that the partnership’s accounts had already been settled at that time. The plaintiffs disputed this and further argued that the karar required registration under the Registration Act, 1908, as it dealt with immovable property.
• Thus, the central issues before the Court involved whether the karar required registration and whether the plaintiffs could claim a specific share in the partnership’s immovable property during the subsistence of the partnership.

Decision of the trial court

The trial court ruled in favor of the Bhaskara family, holding that the partnership had already been dissolved in 1936 according to the karar, and the accounts had been settled.

Decision of the High Court

The High Court overturned the trial court’s decision. It held that the karar was inadmissible in evidence since it was not registered under Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, which requires the registration of documents that deal with immovable property.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bhaskara family, reversing the High Court’s decision. The Court held that a partner’s interest in the firm’s property is not specific to any particular asset, whether movable or immovable, but is a share in the net assets of the firm. The karar did not require registration, as it was a relinquishment of a partner’s share in the partnership and not a transfer of specific immovable property.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Is a partner entitled to claim a specific share in the immovable property of the firm during the subsistence of the partnership?

No

The Supreme Court emphasized that during the life of the partnership, no partner has a specific right over any of the firm’s assets. The partner’s rights are limited to their share of profits during the partnership and, upon dissolution, to a share in the net proceeds after all liabilities have been settled.

The Court elaborated on the concept that a partner’s interest is not in individual items of property but rather in the overall partnership’s assets. This interest is undivided and becomes specific only after dissolution, when all the debts and liabilities of the firm have been settled.

The Court, in paragraph 5, referred to Lindley on Partnership, which has long been recognized as a legal authority on partnership matters: “What is meant by the share of a partner is his proportion of the partnership assets after they have been all realised and converted into money, and all the partnership debts and liabilities have been paid and discharged.”

This principle reinforces the idea that, during the life of the partnership, the assets are treated as joint property of the firm, and no partner can assert individual ownership over specific assets. This view is also held that during the subsistence of a partnership, no partner has any direct interest in any specific property of the firm.

The Court also held that interest of a partner in the partnership assets is not specific to any particular item, but extends to a share in the overall net assets of the firm after liabilities have been settled.

Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed that the partner’s interest during the subsistence of the firm is not specific to any particular property, whether movable or immovable, but is instead a right to the firm’s profits and assets after dissolution.

2. Does a document relinquishing a partner’s share in the firm require registration if the firm holds immovable property?

No

The plaintiffs argued that the karar, which recorded the relinquishment of their share in the partnership, involved immovable property and, therefore, required registration under Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908. They contended that since the firm owned immovable property, the relinquishment of the share in the partnership amounted to a transfer of an interest in immovable property.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument, explaining that a partner’s interest in the firm is not tied to any specific item of immovable property, but to the overall partnership assets. Upon dissolution, the partner is entitled to a share in the net proceeds of the firm’s assets, after all liabilities have been paid off. Since the karar did not convey any specific interest in immovable property, it did not require registration.

In paragraph 15, the Court clarified that “The document executed by the Addanki partners in favour of the Bhaskara partners records the fact that the partnership business has come to an end and that the latter have given up their share in ‘the machine etc., and in the business’ and that they have ‘made over same to you along completely by way of adjustment.’ There is no express reference to any immovable property herein.”

Thus, the Court concluded that the karar was not subject to registration under Section 17(1)(c), as it did not involve the transfer of specific immovable property but the relinquishment of a share in the partnership as a whole. The Court also referred to Samuvier v. Ramasubier^[1], where a similar principle was discussed regarding the nature of a partner’s interest in partnership property.

3. Can a partner assign their share in the firm’s assets during the subsistence of the partnership?

No, except for assigning a share of profits.

The Supreme Court reiterated that no partner can assign their interest in any specific property of the firm to a third party during the life of the partnership. A partner’s rights are limited to their share in the profits of the firm and, upon dissolution, their share in the net proceeds of the partnership’s assets.

In paragraph 5, the Court reasoned that “During the subsistence of the partnership, however, no partner can deal with any portion of the property as his own. Nor can he assign his interest in a specific item of the partnership property to anyone.”

The Court clarified that a partner’s interest during the partnership is inseparable from the collective assets of the firm. If a partner attempts to assign their interest, the assignee is entitled only to the profits from the partnership and cannot claim any control over or demand a share of the specific assets during the partnership’s subsistence.

The Court held that the transfer of a partner’s share only entitles the transferee to receive the assignor’s share in the profits but not to interfere in the management or the assets of the firm.

4. Does the dissolution of the partnership affect the partner’s right to specific property of the firm?

No, the partner is entitled only to their share in the proceeds after liabilities are settled.

Upon the dissolution of the firm, the assets of the partnership must be realized, and all liabilities paid off before a partner can receive their share of the net proceeds. The Supreme Court referred to Section 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which provides the rules for settling accounts after dissolution, including the distribution of assets among partners.

The Court referred to Ajudhia Pershad Ram Pershad v. Sham Sunder & Ors^[2] in which Cornelius J., has discussed most of the decisions we have earlier referred to in addition to several others and reached the conclusion that while a partnership is in existence, no partner can point to any part of the assets of the partnership as belonging to him alone

The Court held that a partner cannot claim any specific asset until after the dissolution of the firm and the settlement of liabilities.The Court emphasized that only after all the firm’s debts have been paid and liabilities settled can a partner claim their share in the net proceeds of the firm’s assets.

This principle ensures that the partnership’s creditors are paid first before any distribution of the remaining assets among the partners.

^[1] I.L.R. 55 Mad. 72.

^[2] A.I.R. 1947 Lah. 13.

Yousuf Khan