(1.) IN this suit defendant No.2 and his sons defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 7 are sued on the footing that the father and the sons are members of a firm and are liable as partners for the transactions entered into by one or the other of them on behalf of the firm.
(2.) ON Mr. Bhagvati's opening I pointed out the difficulty of his being able to make out a case on this basis, and of the probability that the suit was misconceived, being framed on the assumption that the father and sons stood in a position similar to that of members of a joint Hindu family.
(3.) [ Thereupon the plaintiffs admitted that they would not allege or prove any deed or express agreement of partnership and recognising the difficulty in proceeding against defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 agreed to a dismissal of their suit against the said defendants and to pay an agreed sum of costs. The case was then proceeded against defendant No.2 who was held liable on the ground that the agreement sued upon had been entered into on his behalf. ] .