Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Hemant Gupta, J.
M/s. Prabhakar Traders —Appellant
versus
M/s. Veejay Traders, Phagwara
& Ors. —Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 201 of 1996
Decided on 3.8.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. L.M. Suri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Section 19 of Partnership Act does not empower a partner of firm to admit liability in a suit or proceedings against firm.
Headnote:Partnership Act, 1932—Sections 19 and 22—Money suit—Appeal against judgment of reversal of decree—Issue relating to recovery of amount for purchase of paddy—First Appellate Court reversed findings of Trial Court by holding that evidence of munim of defendants is not sufficient to fasten liability on defendants—He had no authority to verify bills on behalf of defendants—Section 19 does not empower a partner of firm to admit liability in a suit or proceedings against firm—Admission by defendant no. 5 that paddy worth certain amount was supplied to firm cannot be used to bind either defendant-firm or its partners—Admission has to be cleared and categorical—In absence of clear and categorical admission of defendant no. 5, admitting claim of certain amount against him, decree cannot be passed on basis of such admission—No patent illegality or material irregularity in findings recorded—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 4, 9, 12, 13 and 14)
AIR 1976 Rajasthan 249—Distinguished.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Hemant Gupta, J.—The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, accepting the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 39,097.52p on the ground that the plaintiff deals in the sale of food-grains. Defendant No.1 is a registered firm, whereas defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the registered partners of the said firm dealing in purchase of paddy etc. The defendant-firm purchased on credit paddy worth Rs. 32,505.38p from the plaintiff and took the same to their firm at Phagwara. The bills mentioned in the plaint were issued to the defendants and the defendants issued the declaration form ST- XII under their signatures after verifying the correctness thereof. The goods purchased by the defendants were duly entered into account books and the price thereof was duly debited in the name of the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount for which, the defendants have purchased paddy.
3. Defendant No.5 Jagdish Chand filed his separate written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff to the effect that the defendant firm purchased on credit paddy worth
Rs. 32,505.28 p and the defendant firm issued declaration forms admitting and verifying the correctness of the bills. The other defendants in their written statement denied any purchase of paddy from the plaintiff or issuing of any declaration form by any partner of the firm. The said defendants denied that any goods were purchased from the plaintiff. It is mentioned that defendant No.5 is maternal uncle of the plaintiff and his wife is one of the partners of the plaintiff-firm. The said Jagdish Chander owes lot of amount to the answering defendants and in order to have wrongful gain and cause harm to the answering defendants, he has got false suit filed by the plaintiff against the answering defendants.
4. The learned trial Court had decreed the suit, but the learned first Appellate Court reversed the findings holding that evidence of PW1-Ram Rachhpal, the munim of defendants is not sufficient to fasten the liability on the defendants. It found that he had no authority to verify the bills on behalf of the defendants. The declaration forms Exhibit PW1 to PW8 were found to be not signed by any partner of the defendant-firm. As per the defendants such declaration forms are not signed by Bhagwan Dass, but Fingerprints expert Shri K.S. Puri has opined that such declaration forms are signed by Bhagwan Dass. Keeping in view the contrary expert opinion produced by the parties, the learned first appellate Court excluded such declaration forms out of consideration.
5. While examining the statement of Sunil Dutt, partner of the plaintiff-firm, the Court found that the plaintiff has not produced the record of the market committee which record would have proved the case of the plaintiff. Still further, the admission of defendant No.5 was held to be not binding on other defendants.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the following substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether the admission of one of the partners will bind the partnership firm and the other partners?
2. Whether the decree can be passed against defendant No.5 on the basis of his admission in the written statement?
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that defendant No.5 has admitted the claim of the plaintiff and such admission of a partner of the firm will bind the firm and other partners in view of the implied authority of a partner in the affairs of partnership firm. In the alternative it was argued that on the basis of admission of defendant No.5, the suit can be decreed for the recovery of the amount claimed by the plaintiff and the suit could not have been dismissed in its entirety .Reliance has been placed on Harihar Rajguru Mohapatra and Anr. v. Nabakishore Rajaguru Mohapatra and Ors. AIR 1963 All.
