PRABHUDAYAL SHEONARAINDAS Vs. CHHOTELAL GIRDHARIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of a some-what interesting suit as would appear from the facts stated below. The present plaintiffs 1-3 had first instituted civil suit No. 114-B of 1943 in the Court of the Sub-Judge,

(2.) ND Class, Seoni, against Chhotelal and Lalji. Lalji died during the pendency of the suit and his widow Kamlabai was substituted in his place. Apparently, the suit: was for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts and what was claimed was that the amounts found due on account should be decreed against both the defendants. The defendant Chhotelal denied the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that he was not a partner and that nothing was due from him to the partnership. According to him, Lalji purchased from him mahua worth Rs. 1800 and he supplied the same to him. Mst. Kamlabai was ex parte. The lower; Court found in favour of Chhotelal all the re. levant issues, that is Nos. 1, 9 and 10 in that suit. According to those findings, Chhotelal was not a partner and that he reoeived from Lalji Rs. 1800 and supplied to Lalji mahua worth that amount. The trial Court found that Lalji supplied to the partnership mahua worth only Rs. 1150/9/-. Thus Rs. 649/7/- were still due from him or his legal representatives to the partnership. A preliminary decree was accordingly drawn against Kamlabai and Chhotelal was discharged. The plaintiffs went up in appeal against the decree discharging Chhotelal. The appeal was however dismissed. Proceedings for final decree followed and a final decree was passed against Mat. Kamlabai taking into account Rs. 649/7/- due from Lalji as one of the items. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit against Chhote. lal and Mt. Kamlabai was added as one of the defendants. They claimed from Chhotelal Rs. 649-70 out of Rs. 1800 for which, according to the finding of the lower Court in the first suit, mahua was not supplied to the partnership by Lalji.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicants addressed a long though to my mind an unconvincing argument. Apart from the question of res judicata, the plaintiffs had no right to sue for the amount for which they had already secured a decree against Mt. Kamlabai. When cornered, the learned Counsel had to admit that this may amount to the same amount being realized by the plaintiffs twice, once from Mt. Kamlabai and on another occasion from Chhotelal a result which the law cannot contemplate. If, indeed, Rs. 649-7-0 were due from Chhotelal they were due to Lalji or his legal representative Mt. Kamlabai and the latter as a partner was liable to the partnership.