LAKSHMANAN CHETTY, THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED AGENT KRISHNA IYENGAR Vs. NAGAPPA CHETTY AND RAMAN CHETTY, MINORS BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN KARUPPAYE ACHI THROUGH THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENT SIVARAMA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit instituted to recover a sum of Rs. 8,000 and odd from the defendants. The plaintiff and the father of the defendants were partners in a firm, at first called R. M. S.L.P.P. and afterwards changed into R.M.S.L.S. This firm carried on business on Soomangai and Kyato. The plaintiff had also a firm of his own at Rangoon.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that his Rangoon firm called R.M.S.L. advanced sums of money on different occasions to the defendant s firm of which he himself is a partner, that the latter firm was dissolved long before the institution of the suit, and on taking accounts as between the plaintiff s firm and the defendants firm it was found that a balance of Rs. 25,000 and odd was due to the plaintiff s firm. The contract between the plaintiff and the father of the defendants with relation to the partnership was that the plaintiff was to have 3/4 share and the father of the defendants 1/4 share, and we may also take it, so far as we can gather from the pleadings that the plaintiff s share of the liability was 3/4 to 1/4 of the defendants father s.

(3.) The plaintiff sues to recover not the entire sum of Rs. 25,000 and odd which was found due from the R. M. S. L. S. firm to the plaintiff s firm, but one-fourth of that sum on the basis that his liability being to the extent of the three-fourths, the defendants would only be liable for one-fourth of Rs. 25,000 and odd, and that nothing else is due to anybody else from the R.M.S.L.S. firm. It is not proved that there are any other debts due from that firm. But we may take it to be proved that there are out standings, in respect of a decree debt due to the R.M.S.L.S. firm and otherwise. The question is whether a suit of this character is maintainable.