GUZZU PAYIDAYYA Vs. VENKADARU VENKATA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Subordinate Judge says that the plaintiff has got "only sub-partners". The plaintiff in his evidence says that they are his lopayakari sharers." This may mean only that he has got assistants who get a share of the profits, or it may mean that they are dormant partners who can make claims against or under him.

(2.) As regards dormant partners, Lindley says at page 333 of his book "But a dormant partner never need be joined as a co-plaintiff in an action on a contract entered into with the firm or with one of its members." See also Kishen Parshad v. Har Narain Singh 9 Ind. Cas. 739 : 33 A. 272 : 15 C.W.N. 321 : 8 A.L.J. 256 : 9 M.L.T. 343 : 13 C.L.J. 345 : 21 M.L.J. 378 : 13 Bom. L.R. 359 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 395 : 38 I.A. 45.

(3.) I think, therefore, that the non-joinder of the plaintiff s immerged (which seems to be the literal meaning of lopayakuri) sharers is not fatal to the suit.