D L SOORYAPRAKASALINGAM GARU Vs. SHAW TRIKAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case for the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant entered into a contract with him on the 8th of April 1909 to supply 151 bales of cotton twist of a particular quality manufactured by the Raipur Mills within 75 days of the contract, that the 1st defendant was one of the partners of a firm of brokers in Ahmedabad of which the 2nd and 3rd defendants are the remaining members and that as the defendants failed to perform the contract as agreed upon, the plaintiff is entitled to damages from them.

(2.) The defendants raised various contentions. The 1st defendant denied the suit contract in toto. All the defendants demurred to the jurisdiction of the Court and contended that the 1st defendant was a minor at the time of the contract, that he was not a partner, that he had no authority to bind the other partners. The most important defence is thus stated: The yarn mentioned in the plaint cannot be had at Ahmedabad and so it was impossible to perform the contract and, therefore, the contract is void according to law."

(3.) On the subsidiary issues raised in the case, the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the 1st defendant was a major when the contract was entered into, that he was a partner with the other defendants and as such had authority to bind the partnership and that the Vizagapatam Court had jurisdiction. These findings have not been contested in second appeal.