MAHENDRA PRASAD SAH Vs. MAUJELAL MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal by the plaintiffs, which arises out of a suit for money based on the hand note Ext. 4 and which has been dismissed by the trial Court on account of the bar created by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Act 9 of 1932), raises a short point, namely, whether in spite of the hand note in suit having been found to be a genuine document for consideration, the trial Court acted legally in dismissing the suit under Section 69 of Act 9 of 1932.

(2.) One Kishun Chand, who died some time in the year 1968, had two sons namely, Mahendra Prasad Sah and Bhola Prasad Sah, the latter two being the plaintiffs of the suit. The father and the two sons constituted Hindu joint Mitakshara family and possessed properties including certain business. There was a partition among the father and the sons in the year 1962, as a result of a suit for partition which was un-disputedly decreed.

(3.) On 17-10-1966 defendant No. 1 as Karta of the joint family consisting of himself and his son defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiffs for a loan of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand). This loan was advanced to them under the hand note Ext. 4 executed by defendant No. 1. Although the hand note was executed only in the name of plaintiff No. 1, the case made out in the plaint was that the sum of Rs. 10,000/-advanced under the said note was the money of the family firm styled as "Kishun Chand Mahendra Prasad". The loan not having been repaid, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit for realisation of the sum of Rs. 10,000/-with interest thereon at the stipulated rate.