1. These appeals arise out of a suit in which the plaintiffs sued to enforce their right in a partnership entered into for the purpose of working certain Government forests in the years 1919-20, 1920-21 and 1921-22. Appeal 17 of 1925 has been argued solely on the question as to whether the plaintiffs were partners in the firm for the contract of 1921-22, the appellants case being that he was a partner in that firm and not the plaintiffs. There is one document Ex. K in this case which is strong evidence in support of the plaintiffs case that they were partners. There is an entry at p. 29 of that book in which one of the partners, N. Venkataratnam, has noted that in the auction sale of the forest contracts the contract for 1921-22 was bought for the firm. That firm had been in existence for two years and the plaintiffs but not defendant 8 were partners therein. It is contended that no value should be attached to this document, Ex. K, because the particular portion recited above was not brought to the notice of anybody until the time of arguments and that, therefore, it cannot be treated as of any value as evidence. Ex. K along with the other accounts of the partnership, was p