KANSI RAM Vs. JAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal, which arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 8,500/- (Rs. 5,000- principal plus Rs. 3,500/-interest) on the basis of a loan, alleged to have been taken by Jai Ram, defendant 1, from the plaintiff, Kanshi Ram, and his father, Bijai Ram, for the benefit of the defendants' family trade business. There were five defendants, namely, Jar Ram and his four brothers, Gopi Ham, Ganga Ram, Durga and Govind, as well as one pro forma defendant, with whom, we are not concerned. The plaintiff's case was that in his capacity, as Manager of tile joint Hindu family (consisting of the defendants), Jai Ram took the loan from the plaintiff and his father on 19-3-1993B. It was stated that the loan had been taken for the benefit of the joint Hindu family.

(2.) The suit was resisted by Jai Ram and Ganga Ram on the following grounds:--In the first place, it was categorically denied that Jai Ram, defendant 1. had borrowed the money for the benefit of the joint Hindu family. The defendants' case was that Kanshi Ram plaintiff, his father, Bijai Ram, Daya Ram, Jai. Ram and Ganga Ram were partners of a firm styled 'Dhandari Bijai Ram Kanshi Ram and Company'. The sum of Rs. 5,000/-, mentioned above, was advanced by Bijai Ram to the firm through Jai Ram. The said amount was duly entered in the Bahis of the firm. Under these circumstances, the defendants contended that the suit was incompetent as there had been no settlement of accounts between the partners. As regards the other defendants, it was stated that they had no concern with the partnership. It was further stated that the partnership was determined on 4th Phagun, 1994 B., and, under the terms of the ''Parkhati' executed on that day, the plaintiff" was debarred from bringing this suit.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge first class, Bilaspur, Mr. G. R. Prashar, came to the conclusion that the loan of Rs. 5,000/-was not a personal advance to Jai Ram, but was an advance through Jai : Ram to the firm Bijai Ram Kanshi Ram and Company to be utilized on the business of sawing wood, which was being carried on, at Kulu in those 'days. In other words, the trial Court did not accept the plaintiffs case that the money had been borrowed by Jai Ram for the benefit of the joint Hindu family, consisting of Jai Ram and his brothers. Following--'Ghisulal-Ganeshi Lal v. Gumbhirmull', AIR 1938 Cal 377 (A), the learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit for one item of the partnership account was not competent. Accordingly, he non-suited the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal.