SETH RAMLAL Vs. NARSINGDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim in the present suit arises out of the following circumstances :- Two parties were interested in property which they held in partnership, and one of them, called Lakhmichand, brought a partition suit against his partner, Bhajanlal, following on a dissolution of the partnership in which the Court gave effect to a compromise which the two parties themselves had effected. The judgment which was pronounced by the Court in that case is to be found at page 29 of the Record. There had been a mortgage granted by Bhajanlal in favour of a person called Narsingdas, and that mortgage purported to convey, as security for the debt which was thereby constituted, the whole of the partnership property.

(2.) It was a moot point, however, between the partners as to whether the partner, who executed that mortgage, had, in truth, any right to subject the whole of the partnership property to the debt, or whether he was not in fact only able to burden his own share. This being so, one of the terms of the arrangement which was made binding between the parties in the judgment pronounced was that the plaintiff, who is now represented by the present defendants and appellants, should pay to Narsingdas, that is, in other words, to the mortgagee, Rs. 8,200, and that the defendant, Bhajanlal, who is now represented by the present plaintiffs and respondents, should free the other parties portion of the property from the mortgage.

(3.) It is admitted that the defendants, that is to say, the present appellants, never did pay the Rs. 8,200, except to the small extent of Rs. 200, to Narsingdas. Narsingdas thereafter brought a suit to make good his mortgage, and in the course of that suit, it was found eventually by the highest Court, by this Board, that truly the mortgage only bound Bhajanlal s share and not the whole partnership property.