Minors can be liable for inherited obligations from an unregistered partnership; discharging debts by one partner enables recovery from heirs based on their share.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2021 This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Additional Sub Court, North Paravur in O.S No.298 of 2008. The appellants are defendants 2 and 3 in the Original Suit, who are none other than the legal heirs of one Sri.Gigi K George who was the Managing Partner of the firm namely 'Galaxy Granites and Marbles'. They being minors at the relevant time of filing of the suit, were represented by their grandfather, as their guardian. Sri.Gigi K George and his wife committed suicide. The firm had stopped it's business even prior to the death of the father of the appellants. The firm became insolvent and therefore the 4th defendant had filed an application as O.A No.54/2008 in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam for recovery of the sums due from it. From the 4th defendant, the 7th defendant, daughter of the plaintiffs had availed an educational loan of Rs.4,43,000/-. In a settlement arrived at among the 4th defendant Bank and the 1st plaintiff the liability of the firm was fixed at Rs.54,92,000/-. 2nd plaintiff was the guarantor of the loan availed by the firm from the 4th defendant Bank and he alongwith the 1st plaintiff, a partner of the firm discharged the liability of Rs.66,20,000/- outstanding to the 4th defendant in order to save the properties mortgaged by Sri.Gigi K George and furnished by the 2nd plaintiff as security at the time of availing the loan, from being proceeded against legally. Rs.4,30,000/- was availed by the 1st plaintiff as housing loan, Rs.3,25,000/- as agricultural loan and Rs.4,43,000/- as educational loan for the 7th defendant. The 5th and 6th defendants in the suit had furnished collateral security for the educational loan availed for the 7th defendant. 5th to 7th defendants are only formal parties in the suit as no relief was sought against them.

2. The liability was discharged by the plaintiffs with a view to avoid any legal proceedings being taken by the 4th defendant in the O.A against the properties mortgaged and offered as security. The liability was discharged by an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in I.A No.531/2008 in O.A No.54/2008.

3. After discharging the liability by paying the amount to the 4th defendant, plaintiffs approached the guardian of defendants 2 and 3 and demanded for Rs.18,30,667/-, but he did not pay any heed to their demand. Accordingly, the suit in question was filed seeking to realize Rs.18,30,667/-, being the proportionate share due from the deceased father of the appellants with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of the suit till realisation.

4. The 1st defendant filed written statement wherein liability to pay the money sought to be realised is denied. According to him, the plaintiffs have no cause of action against him and he is an un-necessary party to the suit. According to him the suit is only to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

5. The guardian of the appellants also filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit. It was contended that the settlement stated to have been arrived at in O.A No.54/2008 is unlawful, and is not binding on minors, that an order has been passed in the O.A to proceed against the properties of the minors only after exhausting the remedies against other partners, that the judgment under challenge was passed in utter ignorance of that order, that the amount claimed in the plaint is incorrect, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get interest for the money sought to be realised, that the plaintiffs have no cause of action as pleaded in the plaint and that the suit is only liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the settlement allegedly arrived at with the 4th respondent is not binding on defendants 2 and 3 who were minors at the relevant time.

6. The 4th defendant also filed written statement, contending that the suit was filed on an experimental basis suppressing material facts, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a charge decree as