NARAYANDAS MAGANLAL Vs. SHARDA PRASAD BANSIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by Seth Narayandas, who described himself as the proprietor of 'Ambarish Patel and Company, Itarsi', in the suit filed to recover a sum of Rs. 5,506 -4 -0 from the two Defendants, Dr. Shardaprasad Nigam and Chandragopal, who are Respondents here.

(2.) ON 14th August 1951, Dr. Shardaprasad Nigam entered into a contract with Ambarish Patel and Company to supply bamboos, for which he received two hundis for Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively. The agreement between Dr. Nigam and the Company was signed by Ishwarlal D.W. 2. Later, this agreement was cancelled, and Dr. Nigam undertook to return the money which, he admitted, was in deposit with him. This was on 2nd October 1951. Both the agreement and the cancellation are incorporated in one document, which is Ex. P -5.

(3.) THE witnesses in the case were examined in the reverse order, -the burden being placed upon the Defendants in view of their having raised the plea of partnership, and also because of the admission contained in Ex. P -5 that the money was in deposit for Ambarish Patel and Company. The Defendants examined five witnesses, including Dr. Nigam and Ishwarlal. Ishwarlal, as D.W. 3, deposed that he was a partner of Ambarish Patel and Company and was paid Rs. 3,000 by way of remuneration, but no share in the profits and that he did not care to claim his share in the profits. He explained how the partnership was working and who were the members there of. This evidence of Ishwarlal was corroborated by Defendant Dr. Nigam, who as D.W. 1 stated that Ishwarlal and Narayandas had admitted the fact of partnership to him when the agreement was entered into. Two other witnesses, namely, Jainarayan Dixit (D.W. 2) and Deokinandan (D.W. 4) also deposed to statements made from time to time by Narayandas that the business of Ambarish Patel and Company was being carried on in partnership with Ishwarlal and one other. As against this, the Plaintiff alone entered the witness -box in rebuttal, though be had stated earlier that he would examine no less than six witnesses. He denied the partnership and stated that Ishwarlal was his servant, as also the third person, who was alleged to be associated in the partnership.