9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Dissolution of partnership of a firm called Ganga Ram-Gokal Chand, whether the plaintiff appellant was a partner in the firm, evidence required to establish partnership.
Analysis: 1. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit seeking the dissolution of the partnership of the firm Ganga Ram-Gokal Chand, where the defendants were his brother and nephew. The defense contended that the appellant was never a partner in the firm. The suit was dismissed citing it was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, and lack of evidence proving the plaintiff's partnership in the firm. 2. The appellant and the defendants were partners in saltpeter works at Chhapanwali and Gujranwala. It was clarified that there was only one partnership concerning the saltpeter works, with the Gujranwala undertaking being a branch of the Chhapanwali business. A decree for dissolution was granted for the Chhapanwali partnership, with accounts of the Gujranwala concern to be settled accordingly. 3. The Ganga Ram-Gokal Chand firm was established for money lending and real estate business. The burden of proof lay on the appellant to demonstrate his partnership in the business. In the absence of a written agreement, partnership could be inferred from the conduct of the parties, dealings with each other, and third parties, typically evidenced through books, correspondence, employee statements, or admissions. 4. The plaintiff failed to provide substantial evidence of his partnership in the Ganga Ram-Gokal Chand firm. His claim of supplying capital as a sleeping partner was refuted as the sums transferred were from Ganga Ram's personal funds, not joint capital. Another claim of financial assistance to the Chhapanwali factory did not conclusively establish partnership between the two concerns. 5. The appellant's reliance on two circumstances to prove partnership was deemed insufficient by the court. The evidence presented did not establish a partnership between the parties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision that the appellant had not proven his partnership in the Ganga Ram-Gokal Chand firm, with costs awarded against the appellant.
|
