H MANJUNATHA NAYAK Vs. ULLAL DAYANANDA HANUMANTHA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendant-2 is directed . against the judgment and decree dated 13-9-1974 passed by the District Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore in R.A. No. 2 of 1971, on his file, dismissing the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1970, passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O. S. No. 142 of 1969, on his file.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge for recovery of Rs. 17,600 against the defendants. He averred in the plaint that the first defendant is a partnership firm of which defendants 2 and 3 are partners. The defendants were taking advances from the plaintiff for supply of cocoanut oil and oil cakes at the agreed prices and thus the business was thus carried on from 23-10-1968 to 15-10-1969. As on 15-10-1969, a sum of Rs. 22,650 was due from the defendants. Between 15-10-1969 and 21-10-1969 the defendants supplied 86 tins of cocoanut oil worth Rs. 5,050 in respect of which bills and invoices have not been sent to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has given deduction to the extent of the value subject to the variation if any after receipt of bills. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 17,600 as the balance due from the defendants.

(3.) Defendant-1 the firm and defendant-3 remained ex-parte. The contest was only by defendant-2. While admitting he was a partner of defendant-1 firm, he put forward his case that the firm was dissolved on 31-8-1969. As per the terms of the deed of dissolution, the entire liabilities of the dissolved firm had to be borne by defendant-3 and from that date onwards, he became the sole proprietor of the business. The dissolution was effected to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The dealings thereafter between the plaintiff and third defendant were not binding on the second , defendant. It was the third defendant that had to pay all the liabilities of the side solved firm and according to the second defendant that had been discharged by the third defendant.