GULZARILAL MARWARI Vs. RAMGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, Gulzarilal Marwari, carries on business in Calcutta and describes himself as a Hindu trader; presumably he is the proprietor of that business. He sues Ramgopal Choteylal, Fulchand, Baluram and Murlidhur who he alleges were lately carrying on business under the name and style of Ramgopal Choteylal at Chinsurah, and he describes them as Hindu traders. The plaint therefore is embarrassing because the plaintiff does not make clear whether he is suing them as members of a contractual partnership firm; or secondly whether he means that they are carrying on a joint family business, of which joint family they are the only members; or thirdly whether he is suing them as managing partners of a joint family business, of which joint family there are other members not named in the plaint.

(2.) As the case progressed, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff appeared to be a little uncertain about the position, but gradually came to adopt the position that these persons are sued as the managing partners of a joint Hindu family business, of which joint family there are other cosharers who have not been mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff claims against the defendants as members of the firm of Ramgopal Choteylal on an account stated and adjusted in Calcutta on 28 December 1931 in writing signed by the defendant Choteylal for and on behalf of the firm Ramgopal Choteylal. Further the plaintiff alleges that the defendants on the said date and at the same place agreed to pay to the plaintiff on demand the sum of Rs. 1,334 being the amount due from them on the account stated and adjusted and also agreed to pay interest thereon at the rate of 14 annas per cent per month, and he claims the sum of Rs. 1,758-8-0 for principal and interest.

(3.) It is to be observed that he does not state whether the agreement to pay was in writing or not. Choteylal has not appeared or filed any written statement. Ramgopal and Baluram did not enter appearance or file any written statement but they both appeared at the trial and asked to be heard, and I allowed them to cross-examine witnesses, and state their cases and give evidence on their own behalf. Fulchand and Murlidhur entered appearance and filed a joint written statement and have been represented by counsel. Their defence was that they were never members of the firm of Ramgopal Choteylal and that the partners of that firm were and are Ramgopal and Choteylal. Without prejudice to these objections, they state that the firm of Ramgopal Choteylal was dissolved some time in 1928-29. This allegation contradicts the one immediately preceding it. Further they deny that there was any adjustment in the writing signed by Choteylal, and that in any case he had no authority to bind the firm of Ramgopal Choteylal or these defendants. Further they allege that the adjustment not being properly stamped is not valid; that the claim is barred by, limitation, and that the suit is bad for non- joinder of parties and other defendants.