SHARANBASAPPA TIPPANNA Vs. RACHAPPA BASAPPA SHETTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 3,714 on a promissory note passed to him by defendant No. 1 on January 23, 1925, on the allegation that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 lived in union and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were partners of defendant No. 1, and that the promissory note was passed by defendant No. 1 as a partner and manager of the partnership shop.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that defendant No. 3 was a partner of defendant No. 1's firm and that the promissory note was not passed for the partnership business as manager of the firm, and that the debt under the suit promissory note was not binding on defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The findings were arrived at on the ground that the suit was based on the promissory note and not based on the debt independently of the promissory note. He, therefore, held that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not liable on the promissory note signed by defendant No. 1, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) On appeal, the learned District Judge, relying on the decision in the case of Sadusuk Janki Das V/s. Kishan Pershad, s.c. 21 Bom. L.R. 605, held that only the person who appeared on the face of the document as signatory to the promissory note was liable, that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were not liable on the promissory note, and that the suit could not be said to be based on the loan advanced to the partnership. He, therefore, confirmed the decree of the lower Court.