Bombay High Court

ATUL BHAGWANDAS SANKLAversusUNIVERSAL FIBER GLASSMOLDING THR. MR. SARJIRAO MORE SINCE DECD. THR. LRS VIJAYA S. MORE AND ORS

Decided: 17 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The bar under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act does not apply prima facie, and the suit should not be dismissed at the pleading stage.

Summary

The petitioner, Atul Bhagwandas Sankla, filed a writ petition challenging a Civil Judge's order that rejected his application to dismiss a suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The lower court held that the question of whether the plaintiff was a partner of the firm should be decided at trial and not at the pleading stage. The petitioner argued that the suit, concerning immovable property allegedly purchased by the partnership, fell within the bar of Section 69(2). The High Court observed that the legal position is no longer res integra and noted that the suit seeks declaration that a subsequent sale deed is not binding and an injunction against further third‑party interests, which prima facie do not arise from partnership business, rendering Section 62(2) inapplicable. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court concluded that the petition does not merit relief and disposed of it.

Issues considered

Whether Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 bars a suit by a partner for enforcement of rights over immovable property purchased by the partnership.
Whether Section 62(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 bars the suit seeking declaration and injunction.
Whether the question of the plaintiff's status as a partner should be decided at the trial stage rather than at the pleading stage.

Legislation cited

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 — s. 62(2), 69(2)

Subjects

Partnership Act
Section 69(2)
Section 62(2)
immovable property
suit dismissal
injunction
declaration
civil procedure

Judgment

                                                                              19-WP-9722-2026.DOC




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 9722 OF 2026


                      Atul Bhagwandas Sankla                                       ..Petitioner
                            Versus
                      Universal Fiber Glassmolding Through Sarjirao            …Respondents
                      More Since Decd Through LRs Vijaya S More and
                      Ors

                      Dr Pawan K Pandey, with Suman Gupta, for the Petitioner.

                                                   CORAM:         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                   DATE :         17th AUGUST 2026


                      ORAL ORDER:

                      1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

                      2.    The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 12 th June 2026

                      passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khalapur, whereby

                      an Application preferred by the Petitioner for rejection of the Plaint on

ARUN
RAMCHANDRA            the ground that the Suit is barred by the provisions contained in Section
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
                      69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (“the Partnership Act, 1932”),
Date: 2026.08.20
15:00:18 +0530


                      came to be rejected.

                      3.    The learned Civil Judge was of the view that the ground raised by

                      the Petitioner-Defendant did not justify the rejection of the Plaint at the

                      threshold. The question whether the person suing was the partner of the

                      firm was required to be adjudicated at the trial.
                      ARS                                   1/2
                                                         19-WP-9722-2026.DOC

4.    Dr Pandey, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that

since the suit was instituted in respect of the immovable property which

the Plaintiff-firm claims to have purchased, the bar under Section 69(2)

of the Partnership Act, 1932, was attracted.

5.    The legal position is no longer res integra. The instant suit is for

the enforcement of the statutory and common law rights arising from

purported acquisition of the suit property by the Plaintiff.

6.    The Plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration that the subsequent

Sale Deed is not binding on the Plaintiff, and injunction to restrain the

Petitioner-Defendant No.1 from creating further third party interest in

the suit property. Prima facie the transactions in question did not arise

out of the contract entered into in relation to business of the

partnership firm. Therefore, the bar contained in the provisions of

Section 62(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, may not be prima facie

attracted.

7.    A useful reference in this context can be made to the decisions of

the Supreme Court in the cases of Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr Vs

Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and Anr1 and Raptakos Brett and Co Ltd

Vs Ganesh Property.2

8.    The Petition thus stands disposed.

                                               [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

1     (2000) 3 SCC 250.
2     (1998) 7 SCC 184.
ARS                                    2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…