BHAVIRISETTI MANIKYAM Vs. JUJJURU BUTCHAYYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted in the year 1951 and the matter came up to the High Court once before in S.A. No. 187/54. It was heard by Umamaheswaram, J., and allowed by the learned Judge's judgment dated 16-12-1958 and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made in that order of remand. The suit was filed to recover the balance of the amount due on a promissory note, Ex. A-5 dated 21-5-1948 admittedly executed by Gurram Subbarao, the 2nd defendant in the suit, in plaintiff's favour for Rs. 2,679. The said promissory note was in renewal of the amounts due under earlier promissory notes, Exs. A-1 and Ex. A-4 dated 25-4-1945 and 2-8-1946 respectively executed by the 2nd defendant in plaintiff's favour for Rs. 2,090 and Rs. 3,000 respectively. The 1st defendant was a firm named Sree Seetharamanjaneya Rice and Oil Mill, Guntur. Its partners were defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 8. The other defendants are the sons of the partners. When the case was first heard by the learned District Judge, Guntur, he held that the suit is not maintainable against any of the defendants other than the 2nd defendant who was the executant of the suit promissory note.

(2.) Therefore he decreed the suit only against the 2nd defendant and dismissed it against the other defendants. Against that judgment and decree the plaintiff filed S.A. No. 187/54 Umamaheswaram, J. held that the suit was based not merely on the promissory note, Ex. A-5, but also on the original Cause of action viz., the amounts lent under Exs A-1 and A-4. The learned Judge pointed out that the partnership accounts show that the amount was entered as having been lent to the partnership and there was also the evidence of the plaintiff that the amount was lent to the partnership. Thus the learned Judge held that the amounts lent were in fact lent to the partnership and that the partners are liable to re-pay the same. But the suit was remanded to the trial Court only for deciding the issue whether the suit based on original debt or cause of action is not barred by limitation. After remand both the lower Courts have held that the suit is not barred by limitation. Hence the 4th defendant in the suit has filed this second appeal.

(3.) It is clear from the judgment of Umamaheswaram, J., that on the question of limitation the learned Judge was clearly of the view that the debt was a debt of the partnership and that the partners would be liable to re-pay it if the claim was in time. Therefore, I am not able to accept the suggestion made by Mr. Krishna Murthy, the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the debt was only a personal debt of the 2nd defendant and that there is nothing to show that the debt was contracted on behalf of the firm.