SANKAL CHAND Vs. VARDHI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by defendant No. 2 Sankalchand against the judgment and decree dated March 8, 1975, of the Additional District Judje, Sirohi, in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1974, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 14091/ - against the defendants including the appellant here in.

(2.) THE plaintiff was carrying on the business at Sheoganj in the name of Vardhichand Ratanji. Appellant Sankalchand and his son Devichand were partners of the firm Chenaji Chandulal, but the said firm was dissolved on October 22, 1968. No public notice of the dissolution was, however, given as required by Section 45 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, hereinafter referred to as the Act. A sum of Rs. 14,500/ - was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant firm on November 29, 1972. A further sum of Rs. 2500/ -was by the plaintiff to the defendant firm on January 6, 1973. Out of the total amount of Rs. 17,000/ - so advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant firm, a sum of Rs. 5000/ - was repaid to the plaintiff on February 19, 1973 and a sum of Rs. 12,000/ - remained outstanding.

(3.) THE defendants filed separate written statements. Devichand defendant No.1 alleged that the firm Chenaji Chandulal belongedto defendant No. 1 alone and was not a Joint Hindu family. He, however, admitted the outstandigs against the firm. He prayed for instalments, Sankalchand defendant No. 2 also took the stand that the firm Chenaji Chandulal was not a Joint Hindu Family firm. According to him, it was a registered Partnership firm which was dissolved on October 22, 1968 and thereafter it remained the firm of defendant No. 1 alone. According to him Devichand defendant No. 1 was the sole owner of the firm and, therefore, defendant No. 2 was not in any way liable to pay the dues outstanding against the firm. He pleaded ignorance about the borrowings.