S BALAYYA AND CO Vs. VASIREDDY TOBACCOS GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short question is to be decided in this appeal whether the original Defendant No.2 could be held liable for payment of the decretal dues on the ground that he was an undisclosed partner of the Defendant No. 1-firm.

(2.) The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants. The Trial Court passed a decree for Rs. 40,351 -26 ps. against Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 to 6, but not against Defendant Nos.2 to 7. As far as Defendant No.7 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that there was no evidence against him that he was a partner of the Defendant No. 1, and therefore, he did not press for any decree against him. As far as Defendant No.2 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant did not dispute the fact that Defendant No. 1-firm was a registered partnership firm, and that the name of Defendant No.2 was not shown as one of the partners in the Registration Certificate. However, according to him, he was still liable because he held out to be a partner of the Defendant No.1-firm, and therefore, he could be treated as an undisclosed partner and should be saddled with the liability of a partner. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is challenged in appeal by the present appellant before this Court.

(3.) Section 28 of the Partnership Act, 1932 lays down as under : 1. Any one who by words spoken or written or by conduct represents himself, or knowingly permits himself to be represented, to be a partner in a firm, is liable as a partner in that firm to any one who has on the faith of any such representation given credit to the firm, whether the person representing himself or represented to be a partner does or does not know that the representation has reached the person so giving credit. 2. xxxxxxxxxx