BASANTLAL JALAN Vs. CHIRANJILAL SARAWGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant. The plaintiffs-respondents brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,400/- Or any such sum as may be found due on accounting of the partnership business with the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case is that the plaintiffs were members of a joint family, whose Karta was plaintiff No. 1. The defendant-appellant on the 5th February, 1949, submitted a tender for supply of 1000 maunds of Chanti Masoor Dal, 1000 maunds of gram Dal and 2000 maunds of gram to the Indian Government Railway Coal Department, through the Colliery Superintendent, Giridih. On the 12th February, 1949, the said tender was accepted and the supply was to be made within thirty days, as per letter of the Colliery Superintendent, Giridih (Exhibit F-3). Before the supply order could be obtained, a security deposit of Rs. 6,100 was made by the appellant. The appellant was short of funds and approached plaintiff No. 1 by a letter dated the 12th February, 1949, to be partner in the said business with the defendant and to contribute half the amount of the security deposit and also to invest half of the amount for the purchase of the grains to be supplied. The plaintiffs agreed and advanced Rs. 3,000 to the defendant the same day for depositing as security money and an acknowledgment in writing to that effect was made by the parties in duplicate and one copy was kept by each party. Thus, in short, the plaintiffs and the defendant became partners of half and half in the business and were required to invest in accordance with their share. Money invested by either of the partners over and above his share capital was to bear interest at the rate of one per cent per month. The date of supply, however, was extended upto the 7th April 1949.

(3.) It is the admitted position in the case that on the 8th April, 1949, 992 maunds 24 seers of Chanti Masoor Dal, worth Rs. 18,553.14 was supplied. After that no further supply was made under the circumstances to be stated hereafter. On the 10th April, 1949, an application for extension of the time limited for supply was made. On the same day, a formal deed of partnership was drawn up and was executed on the 14th April, 1949, between the parties. On the same date, account book (Ext. 2) was darted in which transactions from the 12th February, 1949, were entered. Undisputedly, file plaintiffs, between the 12th February, and 15th April, 1949, contributed Rs. 12,573.15 towards partnership business including the security deposit. The Colliery Superintendent, Giridih, on the 21st April, 1949, refused extension of time and threatened to forfeit the security deposit. On the 21st August, 1949, the appellant received a sum of Rs. 18,057 in respect of the supply made on the 6th April 1949, from the Colliery Superintendent, after minor deductions, out of which the appellant paid to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 9,000. The appellant was requesting the Colliery Superintendent, Giridih, not to forfeit the security deposit of Rs. 6,100. Ultimately, on the 19th December, 1953, after minor deductions out of the security deposit of Rs. 6,100, Rs. 6,062-14-0 was refunded to the appellant by a cheque dated the 18th December, 1953, which was cashed on the 19th December, 1953, by the appellant. The plaintiffs asked the appellant for division of their share and for final accounts, to which the appellant paid no heed. Thereafter, on the 15th March, 1954, a lawyer's notice was given by the plaintiffs in respect of their claim. The office copy of the said letter is Exhibit 4 in this case. The appellant replied to the said notice, accepting the partnership and its terms, but falsely making a counter claim of Rs. 4,000 on baseless grounds. Hence the suit.