Skip to content


Sambasiva Ayyar and anr. Vs. Ganapathi Ayyar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918Mad264(1); 45Ind.Cas.727
AppellantSambasiva Ayyar and anr.
RespondentGanapathi Ayyar and anr.
Cases ReferredLyon v. Tweddell
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xx, rule 15 - partnership, suit for dissolution of--decree--time from which partnership is declared dissolved--discretion of court, nature of--date of judgment, whether dissolution can commence from--contract act (ix of 1872), section 25. - 1. the subordinate judge, in declaring that the partnership shall stand dissolved as from the date of the judgment, has given no reason for fixing that date. order xx, rule 15 of the civil procedure code, no doubt, gives a discretion to the trial court to fix the date; but it is a judicial discretion and not an arbitrary one. ordinarily, as pointed out in lindley on partnership, page 644, the court should direct dissolution either from the date of any notice 'given' in that behalf by one of the partners or from the date of the plaint. section 25 of the contract act shows that in some cases the date of the judgment would be the most convenient date. see also lyon v. tweddell (1881) 17 ch. d. 529 : 50 l.j. ch. 571 : 29 w.r. 689.2. in the present case, the parties have been at arm's length.....
Judgment:

1. The Subordinate Judge, in declaring that the partnership shall stand dissolved as from the date of the judgment, has given no reason for fixing that date. Order XX, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, no doubt, gives a discretion to the trial Court to fix the date; but it is a judicial discretion and not an arbitrary one. Ordinarily, as pointed out in Lindley on Partnership, page 644, the Court should direct dissolution either from the date of any notice 'given' in that behalf by one of the partners or from the date of the plaint. Section 25 of the Contract Act shows that in some cases the date of the judgment would be the most convenient date. See also Lyon v. Tweddell (1881) 17 Ch. D. 529 : 50 L.J. Ch. 571 : 29 W.R. 689.

2. In the present case, the parties have been at arm's length since the filing of the plaint and an attempt to get a Receiver appointed was resisted by the first defendant. We think, under the circumstances, the partnership should stand dissolved as from the date of the plaint. The decree will be amended accordingly. There must be further consequential amendments in the decree. Each party will bear his own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //