PIRTHI CHAND Vs. LAL BALWANT RAI MOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment two Regular Second Appeals No. 1421 and 1422 of 1978. filed by the same appellant against the same judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, are being disposed of.

(2.) M/s Lal Chand Balwant Rai, a partnership concern of Moga, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,96000 on the allegations that one Mange Ham acting as partner of Firm Pirthi Chand Bal Kishan Das had taken a loan of Rs. 7,000/- in the name of the aforesaid partnership firm against execution of a promote dated December 28, 1970 and the amount having not been paid the suit was filed chiming interest as agreed at the rate of Rs. 1/-per cent per mensem. The defendants contested the suit inter alia, alleging that defendants' partnership had already been dissolved about seven years earlier and Mange Ram had no authority to raise the loan in the name of dissolved partnership firm. It may be noticed that the suit was filed after the death of Mange Ram. Some other pleas were also raised The trial proceeded on the following issues : (1) Whether the plaintiff-firm is a partnership firm and is duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act and Sh Balwant Rai is its partner ? OPP (2) Whether defendant No. 1 through Mange Ram took a loan of Rs. 7,000 from the plaintiff and executed a pronote in lieu thereof on 28-12- 1970? OPP (3) Whether the firm-defendant No. 1 was in existence at the time of the pronote ? If so, who were its partners ? OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff-firm is a money lender ? If so, its effect ? OPD (5) Whether defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were partners of the firm defendant. No that the time of execution of the pronote ? OPD (6) Relief.

(3.) ISSUE No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs holding plaintiff-firm to be a registered partnership firm and Balwant Rai being one of the registered partners. Under issue No. 2 it was held that Mange Ram executed the pronote on December 28, 1970 while taking loan of Rs. 7,000/- from the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 3 it was held that the defendant firm was not in existence at the time of execution of the pronote The said firm was dissolved on April 3, 1963 and thereafter did not do any business Thus it was held that the defendant firm was not in existence at the time of execution of the pronote-Exhibit P. 2. Issue No. 4 was decided against the defendants holding that it was not proved that the plaintiff firm was a money lender. Under issue No. 5 it was held that defendants Nos. 7 and 3 Pirthi Chand and Bal Kishan Das were not the partners of the defen-dant-firm at the time of execution of the disputed pronote. Under issue No. 6, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 ware held liable for the debt. Thus, decree was passed for recovery of Rs. 8,960/- with 6% per annum interest from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. An appeal was taken against the aforesaid judgment and decree which was disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot on August 16, 1978 and was dismissed with costs. Cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff- firm was accepted. The plaintiff firm was allowed interest at @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation on the principal amount of Rs. 7,000/instead of 6% per annum. Hence two appeals by the defendants.