The appellant is entitled to recover funds from specific defendants despite the dismissal against others based on contract privity and material evidence consideration.

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff concurrently non-suited in a suit for recovery of money by the Sub Court, Kasaragod in O.S No.28/2003, as confirmed by the District Court, Kasaragod in A.S No.41/2006.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

Plaintiff had subscribed to certain shares with the 1st defendant-company. The 3^rd defendant is the Director of the 1^st defendant-company and has got a major share in the firm under the name and style of Global Securities. Defendants 4 to 6 are the partners of the said firm. The plaintiff had requested the firm M/s.Global Securities to redeem the shares and withdraw the amounts covered under the shares. On receipt of the amount, the plaintiff decided to re-invest the amount with an assurance from defendants 4 to 6 that, the plaintiff will be offered 10% share in the firm M/s.Global Securities. Believing the words of defendants 4 to 6, from April 2000 to June 2000 an amount of Rs.1,22,000/- was invested. The plaintiff further contended that after the initial payments were made, the same was for the purpose of purchase of shares through online trading facility of the 1^st defendant, using their V-SAT facility. At the same time, the plaintiff further contends that the defendants have not inducted the plaintiff as a partner in the firm M/s.Global Security and not returned the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thus it is contended that defendants 2 to 6 conspired together and made the 4^th defendant being the partner to abscond so as to deprive the plaintiff the return of Rs.1,50,000/- and hence the suit, claiming an amount of Rs.1,96,900/- with 12% interest. Defendants 1 to 3 alone contested the suit by contending that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and that the claim, if any, of the plaintiff is against defendants 4 to 6. It was further contended that the plaintiff was inducted into the re-constituted firm and a new partnership firm was executed and going by the said partnership deed, the plaintiff is a signatory to the same and therefore the remedy of the plaintiff lies elsewhere. It was further contended that the defendants have not received the amount as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pointed out that the assets of defendants 4 to 6 were transferred to the 7^th defendant defendant firm was also liable. The 7th defendant denied the suggestion made by the plaintiff and filed a separate written statement. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A44 documents were marked and PW1 was examined. On behalf of defendants, Exts.B1 to B11 documents were marked and DW1 was examined. Defendants 4 to 6 remained ex parte. The trial court on the basis of material pleadings framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the 2^nd defendant is the partner of the 1^st defendant?

2. Whether there is any privity of the contract in between the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to

3?

3. Whether the defendants Nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,96,900/- with interest to the plaintiff?

4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

5. Whether this court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit?

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

7. What relief?

3. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came into conclusion that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and therefore no decree for recovery of money would be granted in favour of the plaintiff. As regards Ext.B6, the learned Sub Judge examined the signatures in Ext.B6 and the Vakalat, in exercise of his powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and concluded that the signature of the plaintiff in Ext.B6 is genuine and t