Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE HYDERABAD
P.S. NARAYANA, J.
M/s. Sri Rama Krishna Commercial Corporation, Bangalore and others - Appellant
Vs.
K.R. Janardhana Gupta - Respondent
A. S. 1531 of 1989
Decided On : 06-06-2002
For the Appellant : Mr. R.V. Subba Rao, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.V. Ramana Rao, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act - Section 92 - Indian Partnership Act - Section 68 – Jurisdiction – Tenant – Evidence - Plaintiff demanded amounts due under said two vouchers together with interest thereon but defendants had not kept up their promise and hence notice was issued by plaintiff through his Advocate and in spite of said notice defendants had not paid the amount and in such circumstances plaintiff had instituted suit for recovery of amount – Held, Coming to stand taken by defendants that vouchers relate to consideration in connection with sale transactions and not in relation to any loan transaction simplicities it is pertinent to note that recitals of belie the stand taken by defendants in this regard recitals clearly go to show that consideration had been paid by way of demand drafts and in fact trial court on appreciation of evidence of in detail and also had arrived at a conclusion that loan transaction covered by had been well established and proved as against defendants and had ultimately decreed suit - In fact at paragraph-9 of judgment of trial court all factual details had been dealt with in this regard – Hence court not inclined to accept stand taken by defendants that transactions represent or relate to sale consideration covered by - Point next question is that an attempt was made to say that court at had no jurisdiction to entertain suit - In view of and also the clear evidence of lending of amount at as deposed court of considered opinion that court at is having jurisdiction to entertain suit - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
The unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.97/85 on the file of Additional District Judge, Hindupur are the appellants. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.30,920/- with subsequent interest and for certain other reliefs.
2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.
3. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that defendants 2 to 5 are the partners of the 1st defendant firm - 1st appellant firm and the plaintiff had lent a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st defendant firm at Hindupur as deposit and the 2nd defendant representing the 1st defendant firm as a partner received the amount for the purpose of their business and passed voucher on 9-11-1982. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff again lent another sum of Rs.10,000/- on 13-11-1982 to the said firm at Hindupur as deposit and the 2nd defendant representing the 1st defendant as partner received the said amount for the purpose of their business and passed the voucher. It was further pleaded that the 2nd defendant promised to pay interest at 18% per annum on the said deposits. The plaintiff demanded the amounts due under the said two vouchers together with interest thereon, but the defendants had not kept up their promise and hence notice was issued by the plaintiff through his Advocate on 6-11-1985 and in spite of the said notice the defendants had not paid the amount and in such circumstances the plaintiff had instituted the suit for recovery of the amount.
4. The 4th defendant had remained ex parte. The 2nd defendant representing the 1st defendant firm had filed a written statement. The 3rd and the 4th defendants also filed written statements. The defence of the defendants in nut-shell is that the 1st defendant is not a registered partnership firm at all and defendants 3 to 5 are not at all partners of the said firm and defendants 2 to 5 are separately running their concerns and each has nothing to do with another. It was further pleaded that the suit claim does not represent the deposits as contended by the plaintiff and there is no cause of action to file the suit and there is no privity of contract between the defendants 3 to 5 and the plaintiff at any point of time and they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. It was also pleaded that no notice was issued to defendants 3 to 5 prior to the institution of the suit. It was also pleaded that since according to the plaintiff the amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid and received at Bangalore on the respective dates the Court at Hindupur has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The vouchers in question relate to the sale of property by defendants 2 to 5 under different registered sale deeds and the said vouchers are given in the available printed forms and hence the said vouchers do not cover the deposits as alleged.
5. On the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were settled:
(1) Whether the 1st defendant is the registered firm as pleaded in the plaint-
(2) Whether the 2nd defendant to 5th defendant are partners in D-1's firm as set up in the plaint-
(3) Whether there is a privity of contract between the plaintiff and D-3 and D-5 relating to the suit claim-
(4) Whether D-3 and D-5 are necessary and proper parties to the suit-
(5) Whether on the plaint pleadings this court has jurisdiction to try the suit and on the basis of suit document-
(6) Whether the suit claim is time barred-
(7) To what further relief-
Subsequent thereto, an additional Issue also was framed on 29-12-1987, which is as follows:
'Whether the vouchers in question relate to the sale of properties by defendants 2 to 5 under registered sale deeds as contended by defendants in para-7 of the written statement-:
6. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff the plaintiff alone was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-12 were marked and on behalf of defendants/appellants the 2nd defendant alone was examined as D.W.
