Case: Kollipara Sriramulu Vs. T. Aswathanarayana &amp; Ors

1. The appellant in both the appeals was one of the partners in a firm consisting of about thirty partners which was running a mill named Vasavamba Oil and Rice Mill at Vijayawada. The partnership firm owned not only a factory but also a site of the extent of about 3845 sq. yards. The total number of shares in the partnership was 160 out of which the appellant owned 23 shares. By a document dated April 15, 1940, the firm executed a lease in favour of the 1st respondent and another person of the area of the site for a period of 10 years. The lessee was permitted to construct a building for the use of a Cinema Theatre. The annual rent was Rs. 750. In the year 1948, the appellant filed O. S. No. 196 of 1948 in the Subordinate Judges Court Vijayawada for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts. On December 20, 1951 a preliminary decree was granted in that suit. The first respondent was added as 17th defendant in that suit. He contended in that suit that the managing partner of the firm had covenanted to sell to him the site leased out and that in any event he was not liable to eviction in view of the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In 1950 before the passing of the preliminary decree a suit was filed in the District Munsiffs Court. Vijayawada -O. S. No. 440 of 1950 by the firm and its managing partner against the 1st respondent and others seeking to evict the 1st respondent. On December 20, 1951 a preliminary decree was passed in O. S. No. 196 of 1948 but it was made subject to the rights of the 1st respondent and without prejudice to his contentions. There was a direction in the preliminary decree to sell the properties of the partnership firm and a receiver was appointed for that purpose. On February 17, 1952 the appellant was transposed as the 3rd plaintiff in O. S. No. 440 of 1950 in the District Munsiffs Court, Vijayawada. As the appellant had by then purchased 39 shares from some of the partners in addition to the 23 shares already owned by him, he claimed partition and separate possession of 62 shares belonging to him in the said suit. To obtain this relief he applied for an amendment of the plaint which was allowed. By reason of the said amendment the District Munsiff ceased to have jurisdiction over the suit and therefore he directed the return of plaint for presentation to the Subordinate Judges court. The plaint was therefore filed in the Subordinate Judges Court, Vijayawada and numbered as O. S. 203 of 1954. While this litigation was going on the 1st respondent who had built a Cinema Theatre on the site was actively trying to purchase the site from the co-sharers. He filed O. S. No. 124 of 1953 in the Subordinate Judges Court alleging that all the partners of the firm except the appellant had entered into an oral agreement with him on July 6, 1952 to sell 137 shares in the site and that in pursuance of the agreement partners who owned 98 shares had executed sale deeds in his favour and the other partners owning 39 shares did not do so. The 1st respondent therefore claimed specific performance of the agreement to sell 39 shares owned by the said partners and contended that sale of those shares in favour of the appellant was not binding upon him. The suit was transferred to the District Court of Masulipatam and was numbered as O. S. No. l of 1956. The suit referred to earlier in which the appellant claimed partition and recovery of possession of his 62 shares was also finally transferred to the District Court of Masulipatam and numbered as O. S. No. 2 of 1956 As the main dispute in both the suits was common, namely whether the appellant was entitled to the 39 shares purchased by him from the partners owning them or whether by reason of the prior oral agreement the 1st respondent was entitled to a conveyance in respect of the shares it was agreed between the parties that evidence should be taken in both the suits together and what was evidence in the-one suit should be treated as evidence in the other suit. By his judgment dated February 28, 1956, the District Judge held that the 1st respondent had not proved the oral agreement of sale in his favour alleged to have taken place on July 6, 1952. He therefore dismissed the suit for specific performance, O. S. No. 1 of 1956. For the same reasons he held that in the suit for partition namely, O. S. No. 2 of 1956 the appellant was entitled to 62 shares and he granted a decree for partition and possession thereof as also damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per annum from May 1, 1950 to the date of the delivery of possession of his shares. The 1st respondent took the matter in appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh- A. S. No. 380 of 1956 against O. S. No. 1 of 1956 and A. S. No. 381 of 1956 against O. S. No. 2 of 1956. By a common judgment dated March 25, 1960 the High Court allowed both the appeals. It was held by the High Court that the oral agreement pleaded by the 1st respondent was true and that the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The High Court accordingly decreed the-; suit for specific performance. The decree in the partition suit O. S No. 2 of 1956 was therefore varied. The appellants share was fixed at 23/l60th. A direction was also given by the High Court that in the actual partition, as far as possible, the lower court should allow to respondent No. 1 that portion of the site on which the cinema theatre building constructed by him stood and if that was not possible, the trial court may follow the procedure indicated in Rama Prasada Rao v. Subbaramaiah, (1957) 2 Andh WR 488 (AIR 1958 Andh Pra 647).

Court's reasoning:
It was the case of respondent No. 1 that on July 6, 1952 there was a meeting of all the male partners at the house of Desu Virabhadrayya and at that meeting there was an agreement reached between all of them (except the appellant) and him-self that they should sell to him their shares (and the shares of those whom they represented) at the rate of Rs. 3375 for eight shares. A written agreement was to be drawn in 2 or 3 days and the mode of payment of the purchase money was also to be settled later. It was further agreed that the sale deeds were to be executed in three months. In pursuance of the agreement all the co-sharers except defendants I to 9 executed sale deeds and the plaintiff therefore became the owner of 98 shares. The first witness in proof of the oral agreement was respondent No. 1 himself. He deposed that P. Ws. 5, 6 and 8, Sri Devata Rama Mohana Rao, Sri Addepalli Nageswara Rao and Sri Thoomu Srimannarayana respectively were present at the meeting of the shareholders. He also said that the first defendant, the son of the 2nd defendant, was there to represent the latter, and that Gopala Krishnaiah, son of the 3rd defendant, and the 7th defendant (who represents the 5th and 6th defendants) and Alavala Subbayya (husband of the 8th defendant and father of the 9th defendant) were present when the agreement was settled. He added that the sale deed was to be executed in three months and that draft agreement, Ex. A-6 was also prepared 2 or 3 daysour opinion, the discrepancy is immaterial and the High Court was right in accepting the evidence of this witness as true. The evidence of respondent No. 1 is corroborated by P. W. 7 who said that except the women shareholders all other shareholders were present at the meeting of July 6, 1952 and the subject for consideration was the sale of the site of the cinema theatre to respondent No. 1. He added that the price of the whole site was fixed at Rs. 67,500 and that all the partners except the appellant agreed to sell away theiris true that P. W. 8 is the cousin brother of respondent No. l, but this can be no ground in itself for rejecting his testimony P. Ws. 2 and 3 have also given important corroborative evidence P. W. 2. Sri D. Subha Rao is the Subordinate judge of Bapatla. He deposed that the first respondent told him that there was an oral agreement for the purchase of the shares concluded in the first week of July, 1952. Exhibit A-22 dated July 9, 1952, a letter written by P. W. 2 to respondent No. 1 supports the evidence of P. W. 2. P. W. 2, Sri S. Narayana Rao, a District Judge and a family friend of respondent No. l also testified that he was informed of the negotiations by the respondent for purchasing the shares and he was also told by the first respondent about the conclusion of thefact that the parties refer to the preparation of an agreement by which the terms agreed upon are to be put in a more formal shape does not prevent the existence of a binding contract. There are, however, cases where the reference to a future contract is made in such terms as to show that the parties did not intend to be bound until a formal contract isis true that P. W. 2 added that the appellant did not say distinctly that he was aware of the agreement between the respondent and defendants 1 to 9. Upon this point the appellant himself was unable to remember whether he had told P. W 2 to that effect. In any case, P. Ws. 5 and 6 deposed that they went to the appellant on July 7 1952 and asked him to part with his shares in favour of respondent No. 1. It is not denied by the appellant that he met P. Ws. 5 and 6 on July 7, 1952. It is also significant that the purchase money paid by the appellant was very nearly the same as that payable under the agreement in respondent No. 1s favour. On the basis of this evidence the High Court reached the conclusion that the appellant had notice of the prior oral agreement; We see no reason to differ from the finding of the High Court on this point.5. It was finally contended that the High Court ought not to have given any direction that as far as possible the site upon which the cinema building stands should be allotted to the share of respondent No. 1 if it is comprised within the 137 shares to which he was entitled. It was stated on behalf of the appellant that there was no equity in favour of respondent No 1 as he was a lessee for 10 years and all the constructions were made with the full knowledge that he was a lessee for a limited period.In any case. it was said that the appellant should have been given permission under Section 3 of the Partition Act (Partition Act No IV of 1893) when respondent No. 1 himself invoked the provisions of S. 2 of that Act. It was also argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to modify any portion of the judgment dated March 25, 1960 by a subsequent order dated June 21. 1960 without an application for review. In our opinion, the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant is well founded and since no application was made on behalf of the first respondent under Section 2 of the Partition Act