M P CHIDAMBARAM CHETTI Vs. SRMARRAMASWAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was brought by the plaintiffs the members of S.R.M.A.R. firm against the defendants members of the M: P. M.R. firm for the recovery of Rs. 24,036-0-6 due to the plaintiffs on account of dealings between them. Both of them are money lenders. The Subordinate Judge has passed a decre in favour of the plaintiff. Against this decree the defendants 1, 3 & 4 appeal. The first objection taken is that on the facts set out in the plaint the suit is not maintainable. There is an allegation in the plaint that any amount payable by the defendants should be made good out of the money deposited by R. M, R. M. firm with the plaintiffs through and to the order of one Chokkalingam Chetti who was a member both of the defendants firm and that of said R. M.R. M. firm. As to this it is sufficient to say that no discharge is either allowed by the plaintiffs or by the defendants. An agreement that the debt due may be discharged in a certain manner does not shew that the plaintiffs waived any other remedy which they might have. The plaintiff s case is that he has not been able to realize the debt in accordance with the agreement. On the other hand Chokkalinga Chetty himself has fraudulently taken steps to deprive him of that money. The defendants do not allege that the plaintiff has been guilty of any bad faith and it is found in Original Suit 157 which was heard about the same time that no such agreement had been proved. We therefore disallow this contention.

(2.) It is then argued that the plaintiff has failed to prove the debt. The plaintiffs account books show that the debt claimed is due. The second witness swears that the entries in the account books A to C are true entries of the transactions that really took place. They open with a debit entry of 45,154-7-3 against the defendants. It is argued that there is no evidence that this amount is really due as the accounts which give the details as to how this sum was made up have not been filed. But the same witness proves that it was the 6th defendant one of the managing partners of the defendant s firm who directed him to debit this amount as due by the defendant s firm.

(3.) We hold therefore that the plaintiff s accounts are corroborated and their claim is proved. It is next argued that defendants 2 to 5 are not partners and that the decree that has been passed in favor of the plaintiff to recover the sum due from the second defendant personally along with others and from the family properties of the defendants is wrong because it is only their share in the assets of the firm of M.P. M.R. that should have been made liable. Though no doubt the witnesses do not state in so many terms that the sons of the 1st defendant are partners their evidence is clear that the firm M.P. M.R. was a money lending business carried on by the 1st defendant s family of which the defendants 3, 4, and 5 are members and another family represented by the 6th to 8th defendants. It was not alleged by the plaintiffs in the lower Court that it was only a certain portion of the property belonging to the 1st defendant s family that was set apart for this business.