SHANKAR BANDU Vs. SHANKAR BABAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order passed by the Assistant Judge Dhulia, allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff and setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court striking off the name of the 2nd defendant and holding the 2nd defendant not to be a partner. The plaintiff filed suit No. 338 of 1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Dhulia against 14 defendants for a declaration that the partnership between himself and the defendants had been dissolved in or about March 1948 and for an account of the partnership. Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed a decree for dissolution of partnership and for accounts.

(2.) IT was the plaintiffs case that the plaintiff and the defendants had entered into a partnership to carry on business in cloth in the name and style of "the Cloth Merchants' Association", and that certain terms were agreed upon and th3 same were recorded in an agreement. The plaintiff claimed in the suit that defendants 1 and 2 were grossly negligent in their conduct and were liable to make good an amount alleged to have been lost by them and account of the partnership should be made on that footing.

(3.) DEFENDANT 1 by his written statement inter alia contended that he was the partner land that the 2nd defendant was not a partner of the firm. He also contended that the suit was not maintainable on the footing that there had been a dissolution of the firm. The 2nd defendant by his written statement contended inter alia that he was not a partner and that the 1st defendant was a partner. He also contended that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was lost on account of the unexpected accident of robbery and that he was not liable for the amount. At the trial evidence was sought to be led on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 that defendant 2 signed the partnership agreement, because defendant 1 was not present at the time when the agreement was executed and presented for registration. It was also urged that the 2nd defendant was merely a benamidaf for the 1st deft, and was not liable on the partnership agreement.