TEDIKAPALLE ANJANEYULU Vs. RAMA KRISHNA TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 3,90 of 1971 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada, have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree in that suit granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff.for a sum of Rs. 17,493-27. The first respondent herein filed that suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21, 651-17. The case of the plaintiff which is a registered firm carrying on business in clothes as Pedhee at Bombay is that the defendants formed a partnership in the na.me and style of Sri Lakshmikanth Textiles. All the defendants are partners of the firm carrying on business at Vijayawada. The defendant purchased goods from time to time from the plaintiff. Under the terms of the contract the defendants agreed to pay interest and commission at 1% per mensum on the amount due to the plaintiff. On 16th October, 1968 there was a settlement of accounts and it was found that the defendants are to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 25,000. They agreed to pay the sum with interest at 88 paise per month and further agreed to pay 1% commission and executed a pronote in the plaintiff's account book. The first defendant signed the account book on behalf of the firm as partner. Subsequent to the settlement the defendants made several payments and after giving credit to these payments a sum of Rs. 14,911-25 is due towards principal, together with interest at 88 paise per month and commission at 1%; the total amount payable to the plaintiff is Rs 21, 651.17.

(2.) It is sufficient to refer to the contentions of defendants 2, 3 and 4 who alone are the appellants here. They contended inter alia that they ceased to be partners with eftect from 4th September, 1968, and hence they are not liable to pay any amount under a settlement arrived at after their retire, ment. It was further contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any commission. Lastly it was contended that the Court at Vijayawada has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is unnecessary to set out the other contentions as these three contentions alone are pressed before me. The Court below held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. It found on the evidence that defendants 2 to 4 had not satisfactorily established that they retired from the partnership business prior to the settlement and that the settlement was not binding upon them. It was also found that under the settlement the defendants had agreed to pay commission also in addition to interest. It however found that the amount claimed included commission as well as interest on commission and a sum of Rs. 1,000 which had teen paid on 4th September, 1968 was not deducted from the suit claim. The Court below disallowed a sum of Rs. 4,157-90 for these items and held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 17,493-27.

(3.) In this appeal Sri Rajeswara Rao, the Counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions: (1) The sub-Court, Vijayawada has no jurisdiction to try the suit. (2) Defendants 2 to 4 ceased to be partners on 4th September, 1968 and are not liable to pay any amount. (3) In any event the lower Court ought to have held that the plaintiff was not entitled to commission.