RAM GOPAL LUCHMINARAIN Vs. BAIJNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 31,983-5-9 being the balance of the amount due and owing to the plaintiffs in respect of money lent in the year 1934. There is no real dispute about the loans or the amount. As so often happens the pleadings do not fully and clearly set out the real dispute between the parties, but a number of particular issues were raised and settled. It is, however, necessary to consider only three, namely: (1) Was the originally joint family business of the defendants being carried on by them as a partnership business at the time when the loans were made? (2) Were the loans contracted in the ordinary course of business and for the benefit of the business so carried on? (3) Did the defendants hold out the managers of the branch of the business carried on under the firm name of Kishorilal Mukundlal as accredited agents and managers of the business carried on by the defendants?

(2.) The main question to be decided is whether all or some only of the defendants are liable for this debt. The defendants were members of a joint Hindu trading family under the Mitakshara law, and are descendants of one Lala Ramdayal, the founder of the family and of a number of businesses carried on by and on behalf of the family in various parts of India, the head office being at Jhusi in the District of Allahabad. Lala Ramdayal had two sons, one of whom died without issue; the other Lala Dwarkaprasad, who died some fifty years ago had five sons, Lala Harnandas, Lala Mohanlal, Lala Kishorilal, Lala Kanhyalal and Lala Mukundilal; and each of these had sons and other descendants, who formed five groups or parts of the joint family which have been referred to throughout for convenience as groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and are set out in the genealogical table exhibited to the plaint. Each group or part carried on a part of the joint family business on behalf of all the members of the joint family, which parts consisted of one business or a number of associated businesses, in various parts of India, and under various firm names.

(3.) Thus group 3, consisting of the descendants of Lala Kishorilal, carried on a part of the joint family business at Calcutta and Jhusi (Allahabad) and other places under the firm name of Kishorilal Mukundilal; and group 4, consisting of the descendants of Lala Kanhyalal, similarly carried on another part under the firm name of Mohanlal Kanhyalal at Madras and Naini (Allahabad), and under the firm name of Beniprasad Kedarnath at Bombay, (though this group contends that the business at Bombay is not and never was a part of the joint family business). Written statements were filed by the members of group 4 and by guardians-ad- litem on behalf of those defendants who were minors. But the only serious defence was raised on behalf of group 4, though at the last moment when the final speeches were being delivered Mr. Das of Counsel asked leave to appear for the members of groups 1, 2 and 5, and was allowed to address the Court on their behalf.