MUKALA VENKATANANDAM Vs. IMMIDISETTY DHANARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sued to enforce their right in a partnership entered into for the purpose of working certain Government forests in the years 1919-20, 1920-21 and 1921-22. Appeal 17 of 1925 has been argued solely on the question as to whether the plaintiffs were partners in the firm for the contract of 1921-22, the appellant's case being that he was a partner in that firm and not the plaintiffs. There is one document Ex. K in this case which is strong evidence in support of the plaintiff's case that they were partners. There is an entry at p. 29 of that book in which one of the partners, N. Venkataratnam, has noted that in the auction sale of the forest contracts the contract for 1921-22 was bought for the firm. That firm had been in existence for two years and the plaintiffs but not defendant 8 were partners therein. It is contended that no value should be attached to this document, Ex. K, because the particular portion recited above was not brought to the notice of anybody until the time of arguments and that, therefore, it cannot be treated as of any value as evidence. Ex. K along with the other accounts of the partnership, was put into Court, in August 1923, with a memorandum signed by all the parties requesting that the documents should be admitted in evidence. The suit was then under trial and was not finally disposed of until one year later and this particular document, Ex. K was put to one of the defence witnesses in the course of his examination. Because the appellant failed to notice this recital or to see how prejudicial it was to his case it is no reason why the genuineness or accuracy of the recital should now be disputed. All the parties by their memorandum admitted that these books were the books of the firm and that admission must, unless there is anything on the face of them to the contrary, be taken to be an admission that they were books kept in the regular course of business.

(2.) This entry is of considerable value being an admission by one of the partners that the plaintiffs were also included in the partnership and not defendant 7. The argument that it is improbable that the plaintiffs would have been admitted as partners because they were in involved circumstances is of very little force in the face of this recital and of a great deal of other evidence which has been referred to by the Subordinate Judge, though it has not been dealt with in appeal. The improbability is not very great, for there is nothing to show that the plaintiffs were in an insolvent condition but the only evidence is that they had mortgaged all their properties including profits to be obtained from the partnership. There is, therefore, no reason to differ from the conclusion of the lower Court that the plaintiffs were partners not only from 1919 to 1921 but also in 1921-22. The appeal, therefore, fails, and is dismissed with costs of respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) Appeal 286 of 1924 is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased partner, N. Venkataratnam, and here the only point argued is one of law, namely, whether this partnership is an illegal partnership within the meaning of Section 23, Contract Act. N. Venkataratnam obtained contracts from Government in his own name and formed the suit partnership to carry out the terms of those contracts. Under the contract, Ex. KK, the contractor Venkataratnam undertook by Clause 2 not to dispose of or sub let such right or any part thereof without the written permission of the District Forest Officer for the time being, which permission may be refused by the latter without assigning any reason for so doing.