SAJJANARAJ SWARUPCHAND Vs. MEHTA COMMERCIAL CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Bulsar at Navsari confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge. Junior Division, Umbergaon in civil suit No. 47 of 1962 with certain modification as per the particulars mentioned in the judgment.

(2.) The facts gives rise to this appeal in a nut-shell are as under:- The present respondent Mehta Commercial Company a firm registered under the India Partnership Act having its principal officer of business at Umbergaon, and six partners in all. One of them was one Madanchand Kishanchand. The present appellant who was the defendant tin the trial Court is also a partnership firm which started its business at Bhilad from Samvat Year 2021, having two partner's Sajjanraj and Swarupchand. This Swarupchand is the son of the plaintiff's partner Madanchand. It has come out in evidence that the mother of Sajjanraj and the mother of Madanchand are sisters. Thus. the partners of the plaintiff firm and those of the defendant-firm. Were inter-related. According to the plaintiff both the plaintiff and defendant firm had mutual dealings. The plaintiff firm had sold to the defendant firm from time to various quantities of grass and both these firms had paid and received various items from each other. It was alleged by the plaintiff that for all these transactions, an account was opened in the books of account was opened in the books of account in the plaintiff-firm in the name of defendant in Samvat Year 2012 and all the amounts paid on behalf of defendant firm were debited in their account and the amount received form the defendant firm were credited from time to time. The accounts between them were often settled. These dealings were upto Sambat year 2016. According to the plaintiff at the end of Samvat year 2016 on Aso Vad Amas an amount of Rupees 9146-70 paise remained due from the defendant firm as principal including the interest. As the defendant failed to pay the said amount the plaintiff served him with a notice and in spite of the demand. when the defendant failed to pay the said amount the suit was filed to recover Rs. 10,000/- consisting of Rs. 9, 146-70 paise as principal and Rs. 853-30 paise as interest. According to the plaintiff, as there was mutual open and current account between the parties, the suit was in time.

(3.) On behalf of the defendant Sajjanraj Mukundchand who was served with the summons as partner of the defendant firm contested the suit and filed his written statement at Ex. 25. He contended that the firm of the defendant was dissolved on Fagan Vad Amas of Samvat year 2016 and the second partner Swarupchand who is the son of the plaintiff partner Madanchand has taken away all the books of account of the firm and hence he was not in a position on challenge any specific items out of the items detailed in the plaintiff books of account. while therefore not admitting any of the items either on the credit or debit side. the defendant put the plaintiff to the strict proof of its case. Sajjanraj denied that the plaintiff had purchased any grass form the defendant firm. According to him the plaintiff firm had contracts with Aarey colony Bombay fro the supply of the grass. As the grass could not be sent from Umbergaon the plaintiff firm has contracted with the defendant firm under which the defendant firm had to send grass to Aarey Colony Bombay According to the defendant the Bombay Grass Selling company were the against to of the plaintiff firm at Bombay any they received the cheque form Aarey colony which was credited in the plaintiff account. According to the defendant the accounts between them were never settled in his presence and were not binding on him. He alleged that the second partner and Swarupchand may have been present and in present and in collusion with the plaintiff settlement may have been made but the said settlement cannot be binding on him. He also alleged that the account books of the plaintiff firm are not reliable and they are not properly maintained. He then specifically mentioned that the was no given credit for several items as per particular mentioned in the written statement. From the pleading of the parties the learned trail Judge framed issues the Ex. 28. From the evidence that was before whim the learned trial judge held that the plaintiff had proved that Rs. 9146-70 paise towards the principal and Rs. 853-30 paise towards interest had remained due from the defendant . He therefore passed a decree against the defendant for the said amount. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge, an appeal was preferred in the district Court of Bulsar at Navasari. The learned District Judge while confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Modified it and held that Rs. 8344-70 paise toward principal and Rs. 665-30/- paise towards interest, in all Rs. 9,000/- were due by the defendant to the plaintiff. He therefore, passed a decree accordingly Against the said decree of the learned District Judge, Bulsar at Navsari the original defendant has preferred the present appeal to this Court.