1959 Supreme(AP) 47

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MANOHAR PERSHAD, MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI
Govula Ramakistiah - Appellant
Versus
Yerram Yellappa - Respondent
Decided On : 03-09-59

A partner can sue another partner for recovery of money without asking for general accounts or dissolution of partnership, if the claim arises out of a matter that does not involve the taking of general accounts.

Headnote:

PARTNERSHIP - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY - MAINTAINABILITY - PARTNER CAN SUE ANOTHER PARTNER FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY WITHOUT ASKING FOR GENERAL ACCOUNTS OR DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED BY COURT - HYDERABAD MONEY LENDERS ACT - APPLICABILITY - DEFINITION OF BOND AND PROMISSORY NOTE - EXECUTION OF SIRCATH - CONSIDERATION - EVIDENCE.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 18,785-10-10 from the defendant, alleging that in respect of mutual dealings between them, accounts were made up and there was a settlement on 20-7-1953 of the said mutual dealings and the defendant was found due to the plaintiff in a sum of Rs. 18,001. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant had agreed to pay the said sum within one month from the said date and executed a sireath in his favour. The defendant denied the execution of the sireath or having received the consideration and stated that it was a forged document. He further averred that he never entered into any personal transaction with the plaintiff or any settlement thereof and stated that the plaintiffs father-in-law, Anantham, and he were partners in a firm "wamarripalli Anantbam" for purpose of trading in cloth, but that firm was dissolved on account of the death of Anantham. Thereafter, he states that he as one party, Mr. M. Venkatesham and the plaintiff as one joint party and Mr. Srihari as one party entered into partnership in the firm under the name of Surfshcbamlra and Co. , to deal in cloth and in a variety of goods. He has further alleged that that firm had dealings with Allauddin and Co. and others and the plaintiff who was asking active part in the said business had been drawing huge amounts which he resented and apprehending that he would be compelled to answer those claims be seems to have concocted and engineered a false and bogus claim.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the suit sircath was a genuine document having been executed by the defendant. It further held that the sircath was a bond and not a promissory note. As regards the plea of the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff was not a money lender. In the result, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit.

Issues: 1. Is the suit sircath executed by the defendant? 2. IS not the plaintiff a money lender? If he is, has he complied with the provisions of the Money Lenders Act? 3. IS the plaintiff entitled to interest claimed? 4. IS the suit based on sircath not maintainable? If so, is the suit amount due by the defendant to the plaintiff?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses to hold that the suit sircath was a genuine document executed by the defendant. The court rejected the defendant's contention that the sircath was forged. 2. The court held that the suit sircath was a bond and not a promissory note, based on the definitions provided in the Hyderabad Stamp Act and the Hyderabad Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was not a money lender within the meaning of the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act. 4. The court held that a partner can sue another partner for recovery of money without asking for general accounts or dissolution of partnership, if the claim arises out of a matter that does not involve the taking of general accounts. The court relied on various case laws to support this proposition.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of the lower court.