ABDUL RAUF Vs. MOHAMMED HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed the suit for realization of a sum of 2,73,000/- from the appellant/defendant. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendant were partners in an unregistered firm doing business like real estate, fishing boats, construction of building etc. Difference of opinion arose between them. At the intervention of mediators, the firm was dissolved and accounts were settled. During the course of the settlement talk, the defendant issued a cheque for 50,000/- dated 30.8.1998 to the plaintiff. Later, Exhibit XI agreement dated 15.9.1998 was entered into between the parties by which the defendant agreed to pay a sum of 2,73,000/- to the plaintiff The cheque was subsequently dishonoured. The defendant failed to pay the amount of 2,73,000/-. Hence the suit was filed. The defendant contended that there was no partnership business between him and the plaintiff. When the plaintiff was engaged as a Mesthiri for managing the construction activities undertaken by the defendant, the defendant sustained loss due to the acts of the plaintiff. The defendant was constrained to terminate the service of the plaintiff. A sum of 23,000/- was due to the plaintiff towards labour charges etc. The plaintiff wanted more money. That dispute was amicably settled for a sum of 50,000/-. Since the plaintiff insisted security for that amount, a cheque for 50,000/- was issued. The amount of 50,000/- was agreed to be paid to the plaintiff after the final settlement of the bills by N.S.S. Paravur Taluk Union for whom a building was constructed by the defendant. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any amount from the defendant. The defendant also contended that the suit is barred by limitation and hit by Section 69 of the Partnership Act.

(2.) The trial court held that the suit having been filed on 2.12.1998 in respect of the agreement dated 15.9.1998, it is not barred by limitation. The defendant contended that even according to the plaintiff, the partnership business was commenced in August 1995 and therefore, the suit filed after three years from that date is barred by limitation. The court below rightly held that the suit was filed on the basis of the agreement and the cheque executed in 1998 and the suit having been filed in 1998 itself, it is not barred by limitation.

(3.) On the basis of the evidence on record, the court below held that the cheque was not issued as security as contended by the defendant. It was noticed that the mediators were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3. On a consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and that of the defendant as DW1, the court below held that the cheque was issued under the circumstances as contended by the plaintiff and not as a security as contended by the defendant. On going through the evidence, we concur with this finding of the trial court,