MUMTAZ AHMED Vs. NASEEM SULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are defendants 1 and 2. The second appellant died during the pendency of the appeal. The legal representatives are brought on record who are appellants 3 to 9. Respondents 3 to 5 are defendants 3 to 5. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 33, 503/-comprising the sum of Rs. 21, 781/-towards investment of capital and Rs. 11, 722-63 ps towards profits.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is The plaintiffs and defendants formed a partnership firm which carried on business during the year 1967-68. The defendants furnished a copy of the accounts of the business conducted during the years 1967 and 1968 As per the said account they realised a net profit of the Rs. 25, 295-05 ps and a commission of 60,000/-was realised for the business conducted with Syed and So ns of Taj Mohd. Beedi Co, Madras. Out of this the plaintiffs were paid only a sum of Rs 9, 611/-. The defendants did not cooperate for the matter to be decided by the mediator in accordance with clause 15. of the partnership deed. The partnership firm was dissolved by notice issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a common written statement admitting the execution of the partnership deed and also its terms and conditions. It is stated that defendants 3 and 5 only conducted the business of the firm and these defendants did not collect or receive any amount towards their share amount or profit The defendants have no knowledge of the business of the profits of the firm. The firm did not do any business with Syed and Sons, Madras. Defendant No 3 was in-charge of the assets and cash, of the firm. Defendant No 5 was incharge of accounts. They are responsible for payment of the share and profit. Defendants 1 and 2 demanded defendants 3 and 5 for payment of profits.

(3.) Defendants 3 to 5 filed a joint written statement stating that Dademiah, the husband of defendant No 2 and father of Defendant No 1 is the real owner and defendants 1 and 2 are only benamidars. Dademiah and defendants 1 and 2 are alone liable to render accounts. As per the judgment, the partnership deed was drafted on the instructions of Dademiah making defendants 1 and 2 as benami partners. As the contract was obtained in the name of Dademiah for the benefit of the firm, the above amounts were deposited of the firm, the above amounts were deposited for the purpose of carrying on the business pursuant to the contract. Dademiah used to supervise the work as the contract was obtained in his name and as he was the real partner. Dademiah received the entire commission amount and other sums from Syed and Sons, Madras taking undue advantage of the contract which was in his name. It is further stated that more than Rs 1, 17, 000/- was received by Dademiah from Syed and Sons, Madras and Dademiah acted for the benefit of defendants 1 and 2. they are liable for his accounts and liable to pay the amounts received by Dademiah. The accounts were maintained as per the instructions and under the supervision of Dademiah, Therefore a decree may be passed against defendants 1 and 2 for the amount due to them and the plaintiffs.