RATTAN LAL AHLUWALIA Vs. JAI JANINDER PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant (hereinafter called the appellant) and arose out of the suit instituted by Jai Janinder Parshad (hereinafter called the respondent) for recovery of Rs. 5,376/- (Rs. 4,200/-as balance of the principal amount and Rs. 1,176/- as interest).

(2.) His (the respondent's) case was that he and the appellant had entered into oral agreement to run business of the manufacture and supply of Scientific Apparatus, Chemicals, Charts and Maps etc. under the name and style of Messrs. The Standard Scientific Apparatus and Chemical Suppliers (hereinafter referred to as the partnership business) with effect from February 1, 1946, their shares in the profits and losses in the said business being equal, i.e., one-half each and they ran the said business in Ahluwalia Buildings, Ambala Cant', since then. On August 18, 1948, the said agreement was reduced to writing and they executed deed (hereinafter called the partnership deed). About ten years thereafter, i.e., on September 30, 1958, they dissolved the said partnership by means of a writing (hereinafter called the dissolution deed) and by mutual agreement it was settled that the appellant would take all the capital, stocks, effects and good will including copyright and one-half of the office furniture, and would be the sole proprietor of the said business. In consideration thereof, he promised to pay Rs. 5,000/-to the respondent on or before April 30, 1959 and he (the respondent) had also taken one-half of the office furniture and retired from the partnership business. The appellant paid Rs. 500/- by means of a cheque (most probably dated April 19, 1959) and Rs. 300/-in cash (most probably on March 14, 1959) i.e., Rs. 800/-in all to the respondent. When he failed to pay the balance of Rs. 4,200/-despite the respondent's giving a registered notice to him, he (the respondent) sued him for recovery of Rs. 4,200/-being balance of the principal amount and Rs. 1,176/- as interest thereon.

(3.) The broad facts alleged by the respondent were admitted by the appellant. He, however, contested the suit on the pleas that he was a sleeping partner and had simply financed the partnership business while the respondent was a working partner, that the dissolution deed was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, and the respondent had defrauded him by misrepresenting state of things which was not real through rnisstatement and falsification of accounts and suppression of facts, as a consequence of which he had agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to him that Rs. 475/-had been paid to the respondent over and above the amount of Rs. 800/-admitted to have been received by him; and that he (the respondent) had by means of information collected from the partnership business published a directory known as Ashoka Guide (hereinafter referred to as such) in the name of his wife and had thereby benefited and caused loss to the partnership business. So, he claimed share in the said benefits to the extent of one-half and pleaded that the respondent was not entitled to claim any amount from him. He also claimed costs. The respondent while filing replication too claimed special costs. So the suit was tried on the following issues: