DEVIDATT RAMNIRANJANDAS Vs. SHRIRAM NARAYANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Blackwell. The question at issue is whether the firm of Anupsing Batumal, in which defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 5, who are the respondents in this appeal, were partners, was itself a partner in the firm of Narayandas Shriram. The question is ultimately one of fact, but the case raises some interesting points of law.

(2.) The suit as originally constituted was against four defendants of whom the second was Anupsing Thakersidas. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they had been employed by the defendants as brokers and Pakka Adatias and they claimed payment of Rs. 7,305-10-3, or alternatively Rs. 5,256-11-6 if the firm of Anupsing Batumal was liable, as the balance due on the accounts. Paragraph 7 of the plaint contained an allegation that a material part of the cause of action having arisen in Bombay, with leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent this Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) Soon after the suit had been instituted it was discovered that Anupsing Thakersidas had died before the date of the suit, and on October 8, 1929, defendant No. 2, the minor son of Anupsing, was joined by amendment. In the meantime, viz., on August 19, defendant No. 5 had also been joined by amendment. Although leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was obtained on the institution of the suit, no further leave was obtained when defendants Nos. 5 and 2 were respectively joined, and it is clear that the original leave would not cover the suit against the fresh defendants. In the points of defence no question as to jurisdiction was raised, but on December 10, the defendants asked leave to raise certain fresh issues directed to this point and at the same time the plaintiffs raised an issue as to whether the defendants had waived their right to object as to jurisdiction.