RAJENDRA PRASAD KHANDURI Vs. SAFIQUE AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant (appellant herein), had preferred this Second Appeal, questioning the propriety of the judgement dated 12.04.2005, as was passed by the Court of District Judge, Chamoli, in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2002, Rajendra Prashad Khanduri Vs. Safique Ahmed and others, whereby, the appeal, which was preferred by the defendant/appellant has been dismissed and as a consequence thereto, it has resulted into the affirmation of the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 31.10.2002, as was rendered in Original Suit No. 41 of 1999, Rafique Ahmed (through LRs) Vs. Rajendra Prasad Khanduri and another.

(2.) The suit in question was instituted by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) on 14.05.1999, praying for a grant of a decree for recovery of money, as mentioned in para 10 of the plaint, seeking decree to the effect that a total amount of Rs. 46,500/- may be directed to be recovered from the defendant/appellant. It was a money, which was allegedly said to be taken by the parties for the purposes of purchase of a Truck, the business in which they were engaged in terms of an agreement of the partnership deed dated 19.06.1995.

(3.) The factum of entering into a partnership deed itself has been admitted by the plaintiffs in the suit in para 1 of the plaint, and once taking of a financial assistance for the purposes of purchasing the Truck bearing No. USQ-0-864, for total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was under the terms of the partnership deed, and hence any financial implications, which will be flowing interse between the partners, would be from or governing inter se financial assistance between the partners of the firm, would be governed exclusively by the terms of the partnership deed itself and, in that eventuality, if the partnership deed, which was on record in evidence, is taken into consideration, its execution refers to the aforesaid directions of taking financial assistance on 19.06.1995, and the interse liabilities, which were governing between the plaintiffs and the appellant, who were admittedly the partners of firm in terms of the aforesaid partnership deed dated 19.06.1995. Hence, based on the fact on records, of existence of the partnership deed cannot be disputed as against the decree in question.