MIRZA MAL BHAGWAN DAS Vs. RAMESHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,078-13-6 for the price of various articles, such as molasses, sugar, raw sugar, sesamum seed, grain, etc., supplied to the defendants together with commission and interest. The plaintiffs carry on the business of commission agency at Shahganj in the district of Jaunpur under the style of Mirza Mal Bhagwan Das. The suit was directed against nine defendants, seven of whom were sued as principals and the other two were sued as sureties.

(2.) The plaintiffs alleged that defendants 1 to 4 were members of a joint family and were originally residents of Salimabad in the Kishangarh State in the district of Ajmer, that defendants 1 to 4 were related to the other defendants, that defendants 1 to 4 in partnership with defendants 5, 6 and 7 started a firm known as Kishori Lal Bhagwati Prasad at Kishengarh for carrying on trade, that defendant 1 Roormal was the managing member of the said partnership concern, that on the recommendation of defendants 8 and 9, who carried on business in Nasirabad Cantonment, under the name of Bhaniram Chhote Lal and under a letter dated Asarh Badi 9 Sambat 1978, corresponding to 29 June 1921, and on their standing sureties thereunder, the plaintiffs supplied various articles to defendants 1 to 7, that retrogressive interest at 12 annas per cent. and commission at 8 annas per cent. were settled between the parties and that upon an account Rs. 6,586-4-3 principal and Rupees 1452-9-3 as interest were due to the plaintiffs from the defendants.

(3.) Roormal and Ram Kishen who were defendants 1 and 2 admitted the plaintiffs claim but contended that they had purchased various goods from the plaintiffs on their own responsibility. They denied that defendants 3, 5, 6 and 7 were partners in the firm styled Kishori Lal Bhagwati Prasad. They also denied that defendants 8 and 9 ever stood sureties for them or the other defendants and they finally pleaded that Rameshar, defendant 3, who was the own brother of Roormal defendant 1 and son of Balkishen, defendant 2, had been taken in adoption by one Ladu Ram and had nothing to do with the joint family of defendants 1, 2 and 4. Defendants 5, 6 and 7 contended that they never carried on any business in partnership with defendants 1 to 4 nor were they partners in the firm styled Kishori Lal Bhagwati Prasad. They carried on business at Beawar in iron and not in sugar, grain etc.