The suit was barred under Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, as the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud and the partnership was unregistered.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. This First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2022 (Decree sealed and signed on 09.09.2022) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Bokaro in Money Suit No.62 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the money suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.29,00,000/- (Twenty-Nine Lakhs) only alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 8% per annum.

2. The appellants before this Court were Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Money Suit No.62 of 2014 filed on 15.12.2014 in which the plaintiffs/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had prayed for the following reliefs:

(A) For a decree of recovery of an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakhs) only as principal and interest @ 18% per annum till realization, jointly and severally from the defendants.

(B) For cost of the suit.

(C) For any other relief or reliefs as the plaintiffs may be found entitled to.

Case of the Plaintiffs

3. As per the plaint of the plaintiffs, Samir Kumar Yadav (since deceased) [husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendant No.2] executed a deed of partnership with the plaintiffs on 29.11.2012 which was registered before Sub-Registrar, Chas, Bokaro vide Registered Deed of Partnership No.513 dated 29.11.2012.

4. Prior to execution of the Partnership Deed, Samir Kumar Yadav had induced the plaintiffs to enter into a partnership for land development business for one of the projects at Mouza- Bhawanipur @ Solagidih and told the plaintiffs that he had already invested Rs.25,00,000/- in the project and for further investment, they would be added as partners in the project and would get immense profit. Thereafter, Samir Kumar Yadav showed about 40 acres of vast tract of land bearing Plot No.1327, Khata No.96 and other plots of the same khata of Mouza Bhawanipur @ Solagidih and projected very rosy picture regarding the land development business and upon his insistence, the plaintiffs paid Rs.29,00,000/- only to Samir Kumar Yadav on different dates for land development business.

5. Initially the plaintiffs paid Rs.5,00,000/- to Samir Kumar Yadav and thereafter, due to financial crunch, they approached the Proforma Defendant Sri Ram Das Singh to provide monetary help to them for smooth running of the business. The proforma defendant Ram Das Singh had given Cheque No.49130 dated 04.01.2013 for Rs.3,00,000/- , Cheque No.49147 dated 01.02.2013 for Rs.5,00,000/-, Cheque No.341403 dated 15.03.2013 for Rs.2,50,000/- and Cheque No.341402 dated 16.03.2013 for Rs.2,50,000/-, all were of Allahabad Bank, Sector-IV Branch, in the name of Samir Kumar Yadav to the plaintiffs and accordingly, the plaintiffs had taken a total amount of Rs.13,00,000/- from the proforma defendant and had given the same to Samir Kumar Yadav for development of the partnership business. The plaintiffs had issued a money receipt dated 02.02.2013 to the proforma defendant in which Samir Kumar Yadav was a witness. The plaintiffs had given the rest amount of Rs.11,00,000/- in cash to Samir Kumar Yadav and Samir Kumar Yadav had issued three money receipts to the plaintiffs for a total of Rs.29 lakhs.

6. When the plaintiffs enquired about the status of the financial condition of the business, Samir Kumar Yadav did not give the actual status of the financial position of the partnership business and later on, they found that neither any land in Mauza Bhawanipur in Khata No.96 for the land development business was ever purchased by Samir Kumar Yadav nor partnership business was ever started and nothing was invested by Samir Kumar Yadav in the business and he had taken