JAGGAIAH Vs. VENKATA SATYANARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is thd appellant. The suit was laid for settlement of accounts of the partnership . dealings between the plaintiff and the two defendants. The allegation in the plaint is that the plaintiff and the defendants constituted a partnership firm and agreed to jointly carry on the contract work in 1965 for the maintenance work to be carried on from the mile stone 17/10 to 26/4 in Guntur-Narasarapet road, that the contract work Was taken in the name of the 1st defendant, that the plaintiff invested a sum of Rs. ll,000/- while the 2nd defendant invested Rs. 3,000/-. and that it was agreed that the 1st defendant should be in the management of the work, maintaining regular account books and keeping the same for perusal and inspection for at all times. When the plaintiff demanded that 1st defendant to settle the account of the partnership and pay the moneys due to the partners, he refused either to show that account or settle the same. Hence suit was laid.

(2.) Sri Y. G. Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel for the appellant instilled life into this appeal at the end of his arguement stating that there cannot be any partnership between the parties in this case as there is no business to be carried on by the partners within the meaning of S. 4 of the PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 9 of 1932 in view of the fact that a single contract with the Government cannot be the subject matter of a partnership.This question was not raised before the Court below nor in the memorandum of grounds. But it being a pure question of law, have permitted it to be raised.

(3.) The work 'business' was defined in section 2 (b) of tha Partnership Act, IX of 1932 which includes every trade, occupation and profession. It is clear that the definition is not exhaustive. It was rilled as early as in 1913 in Re Abenheim that 'business' would include a single commercial venture. Lindley on Partnership, Fourteenth Edition, page 116 basing on the above decission sums up this legal position thus: