A partner can sue another partner for recovery of money without asking for general accounts, if the suit is brought for the recovery of a certain amount, the relief sought should be given to him though it may arise out of partnership business or connected with it and does not involve 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 - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED BY COURT - HYDERABAD STAMP ACT, 1317 F. - SECTION 2 (4) (B) - HYDERABAD MONEY LENDERS ACT, 1349 F. - SECTION 2 (18).
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 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.
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 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. 2. The court held that a partner can sue another partner for recovery of money without asking for general accounts, if the suit is brought for the recovery of a certain amount, the relief sought should be given to him though it may arise out of partnership business or connected with it and does not involve taking of general accounts.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs throughout.

( 1 ) ON the basis of a sircath said to have been executed by the appellant herein for the monies borrowed by him from time to time, the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 18,785-10-10 together with costs and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, alleging that in respect of mutual dealings between him and the defendant (appellant) 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, According to the plaintiff the "defendant had agreed to pay the said sum within one month from the said date and executed a sireath in his favour. The plaintiff alleges that in spite of notice to pay the amount, the defendant has failed to pay it. The plaintiff therefore claims Rs. 18,001 towards principal and Rs. 774. 00 towards interest and Rs. 10-10-0 towards notice and registration charges; in all Rs. 18,785-10-10. The appellant has denied the execution of the sireath or having received She 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. Ho hag 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. Legal objections were also raised that as the firm is actively doing business and not dissolved, the suit does not lie between the partners, that the suit was not maintainable because the firm was not registered and that the plaintiff alone could not file a suit without impleading his brother-in-law Venkatesham. Another objection was also taken that the suit claim was vitiated under the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act, The learned Subordinate Judge. Secunderabad who tried the suit, framed the following 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? Evidence was led by the parties. On the evidence, the learned Judge held that the suit sircath was genuine document having been executed by the defendant. He 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. The defendant has come up in appeal. 2. Sri Venkatasubba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contended first that the court below has erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit sircath was a genuine document when the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that it is forged one. He next contended that if it is held that the suit document is a genuine one, that would fall within the definition of a promissory note and not having been properly stamped was inadmissible in evidence. It is further contended that the suit claim relates to a partnership and unless general accounts are taken or a suit for dissolution of partnership is filed, suit for a single item of the partnership is not maintainable. Lastly it is contended that even if it is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Andhra Pradesh High CourtGovula Ramakistiah - AppellantVersusYerram Yellappa - RESPONDENTDecided On: 03-09-59

Cases Referred (1)

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Govula Ramakistiah - Appellant
Versus
Yerram Yellappa - RESPONDENT
Decided On: 03-09-59