SAHMED KHAN Vs. TURUP MOHAMED HAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Civil Station, for the recovery of Rs. 3,000/- from the defendant. His case was that he and the defendant agreed to run a taxi in partnership and for that purpose obtained a Ford V '8' Sedan on pledge for Rs. 8,500/- from one Joseph. The plaintiff is said to have contributed Rs. 3,000/- and the defendant Rs. 5,500/-. They began to ply the taxi for hire from 10-3-1945; the plaintiff was looking after the service and paying the defendant a ten annas share of the profits. The terms of the partnership were later on reduced to writing in the form of an agreement Ex. A dated 1-7-45 which was prepared in duplicate with a copy to each party. Subsequently the defendant is said to have sent for the car to his house on 3-12-46 and returned it to Joseph and collected from him the entire sum of Rs. 8,500/- without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. On demand by the plaintiff the defendant is said to have agreed to pay him Rs. 3,000/- being his part of the amount of the sum received from Joseph but failed to do so and hence the suit.

(2.) The defendant completely denied that he ever entered into a partnership arrangement with the plaintiff, the contribution by plaintiff of Rs. 3,000/- or the subsequent promise to pay the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had some time in June 1946, approached the defendant and invited him to do jointly with him, some business of importing leather goods and in that connection he requested the defendant to sign some typewritten paper on a false representation that such a deed was necessary to get goods intended for that partnership. This suit had been filed because the defendant who used to accommodate the plaintiff with some advances for his business now and then stopped doing so. He further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable as the alleged firm was not registered as required by law. The learned Munsif decreed the suit. He held that the partnership arrangement put forward by the plaintiff was true, that exhibit A was genuine and was not obtained under the circumstances pleaded by the defendant and that the latter had promised to pay the plaintiff Rs. 3,000/- as stated in the plaint. He further held that the suit as brought was maintainable and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum as claimed. On appeal however by the defendant, the District Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore set aside that judgment. He did not record his findings on the issues of fact; but he held that the suit was not maintainable. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal.

(3.) Sri K.N. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Govinda Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, have argued the appeal fully before me.