C SANYASI RAO Vs. DRAKSHARAMA CHOULTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal preferred by the first defendant-appellant is, whether he is liable to pay the suit amount due on a promissory note admittedly executed by him and the defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff-iespondent Draksh- arama Choultry represented by its trustees. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants 1 to 3 were carrying on business as partners in the name and style of Sri Krishna Vilas Rice Mill, Ramachandrapuram, that they purchased paddy from the plaintiff's choultry and when accounts ware settled, it was found that the defendants became indebted to the plaintiffs to ths tune of Rs. 13,000/-, for which they executed the suit promissory note on 26-3-1953 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6 per cent per annum There were ten endorsements of payments on the pronote, the last of which was for Rs. 500/- on 19 1-1966 Deducting the aforesaid amounts, the suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,666. 25 P.

(2.) The first defendant filed a written statement admitting the execution of the promissory note but denying that he was a partner along with the other defendants of Sri Krishna Vilas Rice Mill or that there was purchase of paddy or settlement of accounts. He laised a plea that the pronote was executed by the three defendants in their individual capacity and it had nothing to do with the partnership business. The defendants 2 and 3 admitted the execution of the pronote as well as the purchase of paddy on behalf of the firm. They contended that they were carrying oa business under the nanae and style of Sri Krishan Vilas Rice Mill Contractors Chodey Sinyasirao and others. They raised the pleas, that they were some parntrers of the firm who were necessary parties to the suit and that the suit was barred by limitation. On the aforesaid pleadings, the learned District Munsif framed the following issues : -

(3.) The learned District Judge confirmed the findings of the District Munsif, that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendants as partners of Sri Krishna Vilas Rice Mill and not in their individual capacity, that the first defendant did not execute the promissory note as surety for the defendants 2 and 3, that the endorsements of payments made by the defendant 2 and 3 were binding on the first defendant, that the suit was not barred by limitation, that the suit as framed was proper and that the defendants were not entitled to claim the benefit of Act IV of 1938, and accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs. In this second appeal, Sri M. Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant 1st defendant contended that the first defendant did not execute the suit promissory note as a partner of the firm but only in his individual capacity, that the endorsements of payments made by the defendants 2 and 3 would not bind the first defendant, that ex-fade the Promissory note does not disclose that the first defendant executed the suit promissory note as a partner and that oral evidence is inadmissible to prove that the 1st defendant executed the promissory note as a partner. Sri MSK Sastry, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the first defendant was also an executant of the promissory note, and that it is open to the plaintiff to establish that the 1st defendant executed the promissory note as a partner and not in his individual capacity.