9911796707
TMI Blog1934 (6) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether his partnership was on his own account or as managing member of the Hindu joint family to which he and the respondents belonged. The suit was brought on 8th April 1924 by P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar against (1) K.V.R. Virappa Pillai, (2) Chokalingam Pillai (3) Shanmukhan Pillai (a minor by his guardian ad litem defendant 2), (4) P.K.P.S. Palaniyappa Chettiar (5) P.K.P.S. Raman Chettiar, and (6) P.K.P.S. Chidambaram Chettiar. Defendants (4)(5) and (6) as members of the firm of P.K.P.S. were throughout associated with the plaintiff in interest as against defendants (1)(2) and (3). Virappa Pillai died after the institution of the suit, and the above-mentioned defendants (2) and (3) are on the record as his legal representatives, as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 6,375, for K. V. E., i.e., the family of defendants 1 to 3 and the late Ramaswami Pillai. 3. There are no written articles. The partnership was alleged to be a partnership at will. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the business of the said partnership in Colombo was managed successively by Ramaswami and Virappa as agents for the partnership until about 1915, when Ramaswami died, and that then Virappa continued the management until about 1916, when one Lakshmana Pillai relieved him of the agency. The said Lakshmana was relieved by Subrahmanyan Chetti, who in turn was relieved about September 1923 when Virappa again took up the management, and acted as agent until February 1924 when he returned to India. The plaintiff further a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecause the family had the advantage of the said moneys and most of the family properties were purchased with the money got from the partnership firm. Defendants 2 and 3 appealed to the High Court at Madras, which allowed the appeal. The ground of their decision was that the plaintiff had not made out that there was a partnership with these defendants subsisting on the date of the plaint, that even if such a partnership existed it was dissolved in 1916, and that inasmuch as the suit was not instituted until 1924, it was barred by limitation. 5. The learned Judges of the High Court in the course of their judgment said that it was difficult to see how a claim against the then appellants based on joint family business could be supported as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30th June 1918, showing the share capital; it is there stated that Kn Vira's, i.e., Virappa's share was 11/16, or ₹ 6,375, and as late as 22nd November 1923, Virappa gave evidence in certain proceedings in the Court of the Chief Court of Pudukotta State, in which he stated as follows: There was another business conducted at Colombo under the vilasam P.K.P.S.I was the agent therein. Plaintiff 1 was the principal person for the P.K.P.S. firm. He died; plaintiff 2 is his son. Plaintiffs 3, 4 and 6 are partners. I too have a share. 7. Two powers-of-attorney dated 10th March 1918, and 28th October 1919, and an entry of the registration of the firm in Colombo dated 29th July 1919 were relied upon as showing that Virappa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lingam was a minor and Shanmukhan was not born. 9. Further there is no allegation that a business like that started by the Chetties and Virappa in 1908 was an occupation of the family of Virappa. In fact, Virappa's family was not a trading family. 10. In their Lordships' opinion, the law in respect of the matter now under consideration is correctly stated in Mayne's Hindu Law (Edn. 9) at p. 398, as follows: Where a managing member of a joint family enters into a partnership with a stranger the other members of the family do not ipso facto become partners in the business so as to clothe them with all the rights and obligations of a partner as defined by the Indian Contract Act. In such a case the family as a unit does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawings from the firm. 15. The evidence as to such alleged benefit is very meagre and depends on two or three answers in the cross-examination of Cbokalingam (the second defendant), and if the family did benefit by Virappa's drawings, which is not unlikely there is no evidence as to the extent of such benefit. 16. But in view of the conclusions at which their Lordships have arrived, viz., that Virappa, and Virappa only, was a partner with the Chetties in the Colombo business, and that the second and third defendants had no interest therein, there is no ground for the plaintiff's contention that the plaintiff should be allowed as of course and with-out further investigation to follow the money, if any, which Virappa drew as his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
