BAKHTAWARLAL Vs. SETH KESARLAL LUHADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil first appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Jaipur, dated the 4th of May, 1951, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for dissolution of partnership and renditions of partnership accounts.

(2.) THE plaintiffs Lala Ramdhan and Bakhtawarlal filed a suit on the 7th of July, 1939, in the Court of Sambhar Shamlat Board against Seth Kesarlal and his five sons with the allegations that the plaintiffs constituted a joint Hindu family which carried on business in the name and style of Ramdhan Johrilal, and that the defendants' joint Hindu family firm in the name of Nathmal Moolchand through its Karta Kesarlal,defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement with the joint family firm of the plaintiffs Ramdhan Johrilal for carrying on business in Sugar in partnership on the 10th of October, 1935, and that the partnership agreement was lost. According to the terms of the agreement, it was stated, the share of the defendants in the partnership profits and losses, was 1/4th of the total profits and losses. It was further stated that the defendants continued to carry on the business of the partnership for some time but subsequently refused to settle the partnership accounts. THE plaintiffs, therefore, claimed that the partnership be dissolved and the accounts of the partnership be settled. THE plaintiffs subsequently amended their plaint and pleaded that a partnership agreement was brought about orally between the parties on the 6th of August, 1935, which was finally confirmed by means of an agreement in writing on the 10th of October, 1935 at Sambhar. Thus the plaintiffs based their claim on an oral agreement of the 6th of August, 1935, instead of on an agreement in writing of the 10th of October, 1935. THE suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds, out of which we are here concerned with their objections (1) that the evidence of oral agreement of the 6th of August, 1935, was not admitted for the reason that the agreement in writing of the 10th of October, 1935, was executed on insufficiently stamped paper. (2) that the defendants 2 to 6 could not be regarded as members of the partnership firm on account of their status of being members of a Joint Hindu family. Defendants denied their liability under the partnership agreement. Several issues were framed by the trial court, of which we are here concerned with issue Nos. 1 and 3 only, which run as follows - Issue No. 1. "whether on or about 8th August, 1935, the two plaintiffs and the six defendants entered into an oral agreement of partnership to do the business of the Sugar Agency of the Ledi Sugar Factory and the Maharajganj Sugar Factory under the name and style of the Rajputana Trading Company, and if so, what were the terms of the agreement?" Issue No. 3. "whether proof of the aforesaid oral agreement is barred under sec. 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act?"

(3.) THE appeal fails and is dismissed. Under the circumstances, we leave parties to bear their own costs of this Court and of the court below. .