1929 (3) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of defendants for the price of goods supplied.
2. Partnership status of defendants 3, 5, and 7.
3. Suretyship of defendants 8 and 9.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of Defendants for the Price of Goods Supplied:
The plaintiffs sought recovery of Rs. 8,078-13-6 for goods supplied to the defendants, including commission and interest. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants 1 to 4 were members of a joint family and in partnership with defendants 5, 6, and 7, formed a firm named Kishori Lal Bhagwati Prasad. Defendants 8 and 9 were claimed to be sureties. However, the court found that the firm consisted only of defendants 1, 2, 4, and 6. Defendants 3, 5, and 7 were not partners, and defendants 8 and 9 did not stand sureties. Consequently, the court decreed against defendants 1, 2, 4, and 6, who accepted the decree without appeal.

2. Partnership Status of Defendants 3, 5, and 7:
The plaintiffs appealed, seeking to include defendants 3, 5, and 7 as partners. They argued that Rameshar, defendant 3, was part of the joint family and thus a partner by presumption. The court discussed various precedents, emphasizing that partnership must be proven by evidence of agreement, either express or implied, and not merely presumed from joint family membership. The court cited several cases, including Parbati Dasi v. Baikuntha Nath De and Bandhu Ram v. Chintaman Singh, to highlight that the presumption of joint family property does not extend to partnership liabilities. The court concluded that no evidence supported the claim that defendants 3, 5, and 7 were partners in the firm, and thus, the lower court's finding was upheld.

3. Suretyship of Defendants 8 and 9:
The plaintiffs contended that defendants 8 and 9 were sureties for the other defendants based on a letter dated 29th June 1921. The court examined the documents presented and found no indication that defendants 8 and 9 undertook to perform the promise or discharge the liability of the other defendants. The court reiterated the definition of a contract of guarantee under the Indian Contract Act and found no evidence of suretyship. Therefore, the contention was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, affirming the lower court's decree against defendants 1, 2, 4, and 6. It held that there was no evidence to support the inclusion of defendants 3, 5, and 7 as partners or defendants 8 and 9 as sureties. The judgment emphasized the necessity of proving partnership and suretyship through concrete evidence rather than presumptions based on joint family membership.