POULOTH PARANCHU Vs. PAPPU FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of money from two defendants. The suit, as ordinarily framed, was one on the basis of a promissory note, Ext. A, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 30.3.1124. The plaintiffs case was that the two defendants were carrying on business in partnership and that timber was purchased from him by the partnership. A sum of Rs. 4,500 was due to him as price thereof, and the first defendant, who was the managing partner, executed the promissory note for that amount. It was alleged that the promissory note was executed on behalf of the partnership. Several part payments were made by the partnership thereafter, and the suit was for recovery of the balance amount.

(2.) The first defendant remained ex parte. The second defendant contended that the promissory note was executed by the first defendant in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the partnership and that he could not be made liable on the basis of the promissory note. It was also contended that the partnership was dissolved later when the first defendant undertook liability for discharging the amount and that this was with the concurrence of the plaintiff. In view of this, he disclaimed liability for the plaint amount.

(3.) During the course of the trial, the plaintiff got the plaint amended so as to make it clear that the suit was one on the original transaction, viz., the purchase of timber. The second defendant filed an additional written statement stating that, even on that basis, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount from him.