SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Santiranjan Das Gupta, Appellant
Versus
M/s. Dasuram Murzamull, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1026 of 1967, D/- 24-8-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Nag Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. K. L. Hathi, Advocate for Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate, for Respondent.
Judgment
DUA, J. :- This is plaintiff s appeal on certificate under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature of Assam and Nagaland reversing the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Nowgong and dismissing the plaintiff s suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts.
2. According to the plaintiff-appellant he had a mill at Nojai where he was carrying on his milling business. The defendants represented to him that if the milling business was carried on in partnership with them then the plaintiff would make large profits and on that representation and assurance he entered into a partnership with the defendants on or about January 10, 1948. The partnership business, to quote the plaint "commenced from about the middle of January, 1948 and the work continued upto 10th September, 1948". Some disputes arose and on or about November 6, 1948 Murzamull Agarwal told the plaintiff that the business in partnership was no longer possible. In September 1951 the plaintiff instituted the present suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts out of which the present appeal arises. In para 13 of the plaint it was averred that the partnership in question had stood dissolved on and from November 6, 1948.
3. Besides other legal objections taken by the defendants in their written statement it was pleaded that there was no partnership between the parties and that there was only a milling agreement dated January 11, 1948 between them under which the defendants were getting paddy milled in the plaintiff s rice mills for which the dues had all along been paid to the plaintiff in accordance with the milling contract. This plea gave rise to issue no. 1. The trial court decreed the suit holding issue no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff.
4. On appeal, the High Court in a fairly detailed and exhaustive judgment came to the conclusion that there was no partnership between the parties and dismissed the plaintiff s suit.
5. Before us Shri Nag, the learned counsel for the appellant, has very fairly and frankly conceded that there is no written instrument of partnership. According to him the partnership was oral and was entered into some time on or about January 10, 1948. We have on the record a written agreement between the parties Ex. B dated January 11, 1948. This agreement purports to be a milling hire arrangement between Santi Ranjan Das Gupta, proprietor of Das Gupta Rice Mills, Nojai Nowgong (plaintiff-appellant in this litigation) and Messrs Dasuram Murzamull of Gauhati (defendants-respondents). According to this agreement, the plaintiff who was not able to run the mill business for himself entered into a milling hire arrangement with the defendants on the following conditions :
"1. An amount of as. 8 (annas eight only) per maund of paddy milled by me will be paid to me by Messrs Dasuram Murzamul and this would include boiling, drying, milling, storing and loading in wagons of the rice produced in the mills. All the running expenses of the mills including cost of labour, lubricants, spare parts etc., will be borne by me.
2. The stock of paddy maintained by Messrs Dasuram Murzamull in my mills will be absolutely theirs and I shall have no claim on it or any rent for it. Creditors of mine will have also no claim for the paddy or rice or products thereof etc.
3. The milling charges will be payable to me either daily or weekly as may be demanded at the rate of eight annas per maund of paddy, rice, khudi, gura, husks etc., will also go to M/s. Dasuram Murzamull.
4. That this milling arrangement will continue till 31st Chaitra 1364 B.S."
According to Shri Nag this agreement According to Shri Nag this agreement is merely a paper transaction designed to defeat the plaintiff s creditors because he was in a bad financial position. Reliance in support of the plaintiff-appellant s version was placed on the evidence of the plaintiff himself as P.W. 1. According to his testimony he had in Baisakh 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.