GOVINDOSS KRISHNADOSS Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are six consolidated appeals from six decrees all dated April 1, 1931, made by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in its civil appellate jurisdiction, which reversed six decrees of different dates made by the same Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. As will be seen later, a decision in the leading appeal (No. 101 of 1932) will, in effect, apply equally in the remaining appeals.

(2.) Babu alias Govindoss Krishnadoss, who is appellant in all the appeals, was plaintiff in the principal suit (C. Section No. 622 of 1923), which was filed through his next friend Laldoss, his uncle, on account of his then minority, on August 30, 1923, and is the subject of the leading appeal. The appellant's father, Krishnadoss, died on August 13, 1908, and the main question is whether his father's interest in the business carried on under the name of Muralidoss Ramdoss & Co., was that of a partner or of a member of an undivided Hindu family. If the latter be the correct view, the appeals admittedly fail; if the business was a partnership, a question arises whether the interest of the appellant's father is affected by debts, secured and unsecured, contracted by the firm some years after the date of his father's death, and, if so, to what extent?

(3.) The trial Court held that the firm at the time of the death of the appellant's father was an ordinary partnership and that the debts subsequently contracted by the firm did not affect his interest in the firm. On appeal the High Court held that the firm was a joint Hindu family firm; they, further held that, even if it was a partnership firm, the interest: of the appellant's father in the firm was liable for the debts subsequently contracted.