GHARABHARAN Vs. SRI RADHA KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected appeals (F. A. No. 499 of 1952 and F. A. No. 40 of 1953) arising out of a suit for recovery of money. The suit was filed by one Radha Krishna. Defendant No. 1 in the suit was firm Suraj Mal Ganesh Das. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit were Gharbharan Prasad & Seth Genesh Das, partners of the Firm Suraj Mal Ganesh Das Defendant No. 1.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 2 Gharbharan Prasad was the Managing partner of the firm styled as Firm Suraj Mal Ganesh Das, and in the course of the management of the said Firm, he borrowed monies from the plaintiff at various times for the purposes of the Firm. He had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- on the 17th July, 1945, of Rs. 3,000/- on the 7th August, 1945, of Rs. 2000/- on the 13th August, 1945 and of Rs. 5,000/- on the 26th of September, 1945. Thus the plaintiff had advanced a total amount of Rs. 20,000/- as loan to the Firm of which defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were the partners. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were liable for the payment of the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- being partners of the Firm. It was further alleged that between the 5th of August, 1946, and the 9th September, 1948, defendants had paid Rs. 3,697/2/5 towards interest in various instalments. On the 9th September, 1948, an accounting was done between the parties and after defendant No. 2 had paid the interest due upto that date, a balance was struck and an amount arrived at as "account stated." An entry to that effect was made in the sarkhat Ext. 4. Below the entry, defendant No. 2 affixed his signature thereby acknowledging the liability and renewing the contract to pay. The defendants having failed to pay the amount, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on the 1st of May, 1951, praying that a decree for Rs. 20,000/- as principal and Rs. 3,150/- as interest, in all a total sum of Rs. 23,150/- be passed against the defendants. A further prayer was also made for the award of the pendente lite and future interest and costs of the suit.

(3.) Both defendants Nos. 2 and 3 admitted that they were the partners of the firm Suraj Mal Ganesh Das. It is interesting to note that each of the two defendants i. e., defendants Nos. 2 and 3, accused the other of colluding with the plaintiff. They contested the suit on various grounds.