ABDULLAKUTTY Vs. ABUBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant in a suit for recovery of money is the appellant in the second appeal. Defendants 1 and 3 remained ex parte; the resistance to the claim therefore came only from the 2nd defendant. The resistance, however, was unsuccessful in the courts below. The contentions are pursued in the second appeal. Some of the contentions at any rate have a legal flavour. Those have to be dealt with in the second appeal.

(2.) The claim was on the basis that the plaintiff joined and paid subscriptions to a Kuri run by a firm of which defendants were partners. The 2nd defendant admitted that he was initially a partner. He claimed that he ceased to be so from 1-4-1972. According to him, the plaintiff became a subscriber of the Kuri only after he so ceased to be a partner.

(3.) The factual position as to when the plaintiff joined the kuri need not be considered by this court by attempting a fresh evaluation of evidence in the case. The evidence of Pw. 1 that he joined the kuri in 1971, is not controverted by any acceptable evidence of the 2nd defendant. It has therefore to be held that the plaintiff joined the kuri in the year 1971.