Endorsements of payments or acknowledgments made by one partner of a firm can bind the other partners if the partner making the endorsements had the requisite authority to do so.

( 1 ) THE question that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal preferred by the first defendant-appellant is, whether he is liable to pay the suit amount due on a promissory note admittedly executed by him and the defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff-iespondent Draksh- arama Choultry represented by its trustees. The plaintiffs case is that the defendants 1 to 3 were carrying on business as partners in the name and style of Sri Krishna Vilas Rice Mill, ramachandrapuram, that they purchased paddy from the plaintiff s choultry and when accounts ware settled, it was found that the defendants became indebted to the plaintiffs to ths tune of Rs. 13,000/-, for which they executed the suit promissory note on 26-3-1953 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6 per cent per annum There were ten endorsements of payments on the pronote, the last of which was for Rs. 500/- on 19 1-1966 Deducting the aforesaid amounts, the suit was laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,666. 25 P.

( 2 ) THE first defendant filed a written statement admitting the execution of the promissory note but denying that he was a partner along with the other defendants of Sri Krishna Vilas Rice Mill or that there was purchase of paddy or settlement of accounts. He laised a plea that the pronote was executed by the three defendants in their individual capacity and it had nothing to do with the partnership business. The defendants 2 and 3 admitted the execution of the pronote as well as the purchase of paddy on behalf of the firm. They contended that they were carrying oa business under the nanae and style of Sri Krishan vilas Rice Mill Contractors Chodey Sinyasirao and others. They raised the pleas, that they were some parntrers of the firm who were necessary parties to the suit and that the suit was barred by limitation. On the aforesaid pleadings, the learned District Munsif framed the following issues : -1) Whether the defendants are the partners of Sri Krishna Vilas rice Mill ? 2) Whether the suit pronote wasexecuted by the defendants as partners of Sri Krishna Vilas Rice Mill after the settlement of accounts and was not executed in their individual capacity? 3) Whether the payments made under the suit pronote by the defendants 2 and 3 are true and if so whether the defendants 2 and 3 have got right, authority or capacity to make or to endorse the said payments on behalf of the first defendant and bind the 1st defendant ? 4) Whether the suit pronote is barred by limitation against any defendant ? 5) Whether the defendants are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938? 6) To what relief?on Issue No. I it was found that the defendants were partners of sri Krishna Vilas Rice Mill Contractors chodey Sanyasirao and others but not Sri Krishna Vilas Rice Mill. On Issue No. 2 it was found that the suit promissory notewas executed by the defendants as partners of Sri Krishna vilas Rice Mill Contractors Chodey Sanyasirao and others, after settlement of accounts and that it was not executed in their individual capacity. The learned District Muasif foundfon issue No. 3, that the endorsements of payments were true, that the defendants 2 and 3 had authority to make the endorsements of payments, and that they were binding on the first defendant. On issue No. 4, he found that the suit was not barred by limitation. As the defendant s firm was an Income-tax asse-ssee, the claim for relief under Act. No. IV of 1938 was negatived. On those findings, the suit was decreed against all the defendants with costs. Only the first defendant preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 31/1972 to the court of the District Judge, East Godavaiy, Rajahmundry, and the learned Judge framed the following points for consideration;1) Whether the defendants executed the suit promissory note as partners of Sri Krishna Vilas Rice Mill or in their individual capacity? 2) Whether the 1st defendant (appellant) is only a surety for the defendants 2 and 3 and thus is not liable under the suit promiss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document