Dismissed

The Tahsildar v. Vazhakulam Granites

Kerala HC11 Mar 2020RP/201/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by the State. The petitioner misconceived that immovable property belonging to a reconstituted firm must be transferred to a newly inducted partner. The court held that partnership property remains with the firm regardless of partner changes and mutation merely updates the representative of the firm.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; no transfer of property to the new partner required.

The Tahsildar Vs Vazhakulam Granites — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941

¶5

RP.No.201 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 23142/2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23142/2019(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 THE TAHSILDAR CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA 685 584

¶9

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAKKAD, THODUPUZHA 685 608

¶10

ADV.SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN GP

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

M/S VAZHAKULAM GRANITES DOOR NO. VI/318, VAZHAKULAM, ARIKUZHA P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI 685 608

¶13

ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RP.No.201 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 23142/2019

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 11th day of March 2020

¶19

The review petition is filed by the State on a misconception that

¶20

when a new partner is inducted into a reconstituted firm, there should be transfer of immovable property belonging to the firm in favour of the newly inducted partner. This is on an assumption that the partnership property is the individual property of the partners.

¶21

The matter is arising from transfer of mutation consequent upon reconstitution of the firm. Admittedly, the property belongs to the partnership firm. Mutation was sought showing that newly inducted partner is to represent the firm. In fact, mutation as sought would only show that, who is representing the partnership firm. There is no dispute to the fact that the firm holds the property. What was

¶22

sought to be corrected is the person who is representing the firm instead of the earlier person who was hitherto referred in the revenue records.

¶23

On a combined reading of Sections 14 and 19 (2) (f) of the

¶24

Indian Partnership Act,1932 it would quite clear that partnership firm

¶25

RP.No.201 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 23142/2019

¶26

¶27

can hold immovable property. Partnership being a compendious personality, it also has been conferred with some of the rights that would have been otherwise available with the juristic entity by the statutory provision itself. When the statute itself confers such authority to the partnership firm to hold such property, change of partners will not change the character of the property as that belongs to the partnership firm.

¶28

In such circumstances, there is no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

SAS/11/03/2020

The Tahsildar v. Vazhakulam Granites

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar v. Vazhakulam Granites

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Venugopalan Vs Kavitha a.

Gopalan Vs the District Collector

Maneesh, Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Varghese, Vs State of Kerala

Sundaresan, Vs Tahsildar, Nedumangad Taluk

G.Satheesh Kumar, Vs State of Kerala