PAULRAJ Vs. T M MATHALAI NADAR SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been brought forth from the judgment of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai made in AS No.62 of 1991, wherein the judgment of the trial court in a suit based on dealings was reversed insofar as the appellant/fourth respondent.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent T.M.Mathalai Nadar Sons through its Proprietor has filed a suit for recovery of money against four defendants stating that the first defendant partnership firm and the defendants 2 to 4, who were partners, were liable to pay a sum of Rs.7282.20 with interest stating that the first defendant was the customer of the plaintiff, a licensed wholesale sugar and grocery dealer; that the first defendant was purchasing sugar and grocery from the plaintiff regularly in bulk quantity; that the transactions between the parties done in the usual course of business; that the first defendant was liable to pay from 1979 to 1.2.1983 a sum of Rs.7282.20; that the defendants 2 to 4, who were the partners, were also liable jointly and separately along with the first defendant firm; that despite repeated demands, the said amount was not paid, and hence, there arose a necessity for filing the suit.

(3.) The defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte. The fourth defendant contested the suit stating that he ceased to be a partner of first defendant firm from 7.7.1982 under an agreement by settling his accounts; that the partnership was taken over by the defendants 2 and 3 with all the assets and liability and they were carrying on their business; that the plaintiff and the other customers were informed about the same and the fact was also known to the plaintiff; that the fourth defendant started new business, under the name and style of Gnana Jothi Stores, which is situated opposite to the first defendant's premises in 1982 itself; that the plaintiff and the fourth defendant had an independent business transaction from 7.9.1982 onwards for many years; that the defendants have also informed the plaintiff regarding the reconstitution of the first defendant firm; that the plaintiff, with the knowledge of the same, was supplying the same materials to the fourth defendant in his shop, and thus suppressing the said facts, the plaintiff has sought the relief against the fourth defendant also and that has got to be rejected.