PHODILAL Vs. REGISTERED FIRM RADHEYSHYAM NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 2 to 4 have come up in appeal challenging a money decree passed against the four defendants (including respondent No. 1, who was defendant No. 1 before the trial Court) in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. It entered into commercial transactions, mostly consisting of selling cloth on credit to M/s. Maheshchand Ramjidas, allegedly a joint Hindu family firm. The firm M/s. Maheshchand Ramjidas was impleaded as defendant No. 1 sued through Maheshchand s/o Naraindas. Phodilal s/o Naraindas (that is, brother of Maheshchand, the defendant No. 1) and Ramjidas, Jagdish both sons of Phodilal, the defendant No. 2, were also joined as defendants described as partners of firm M/s. Maheshchand Ramjidas. The plaint alleged all the four defendants id have entered into the suit transactions. Para 1 of the plaint stated that the defendants were working as partners of the firm, also as members of joint Hindu family. These averments were denied in the written statement and it was pleaded that the business activity carried on in the name and style of M/s. Maheshchand Ramjidas was the business activity of Maheshchand, the defendant No. 1 alone. As already noticed, this is plea has not found favour with the Courts below.

(3.) VIDE order dated 23 -2 -1983, this Court admitted the appeal for hearing parties on the following substantial question of law : - -