JUDGMENT

Buckland, AG. C.J.

1. The hearing of this suit began on 2nd January last on which day several witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. The learned Advocate-General, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, on 3rd January applied for an adjournment of the hearing in order to make an application to amend the plaint. In allowing that application I delivered a short judgment for reasons which I gave. On 16th January next ensuing an application to amend the plaint was made by the learned Advocate-General, and again I delivered a judgment to which reference also can be made for information as to the earlier history of the suit. The affect of the amendment has been to change to a considerable extent the nature of the suit, which observation is introductory only.

2. Among the witnesses called on 2nd January was one called Bhramarmal who said he was a partner in the plaintiff firm. No other witness so describing himself was called until today when a young man of the name of Pushraj was put into the witness-box. It occurred to me to inquire whether the business carried on by the plaintiffs was a joint family business or whether the business was a contractual partnership. F