9911796707
TMI Blog1922 (8) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate on the ground that the deceased Raghunathdas Premji was a partner in the firm of Raghunathdas Mulji. Raghunathdas died on April 23, 1919, leaving a will dated February 7, 1919. The present appellant obtained probate on October 24, 1921. It appears that no notice of the suit was given to partners other than Vachharaj. 2. It was contended before the learned Judge who heard the summons that the original decree-holder Keshavji had knowledge of the death of Raghunathdas Premji, at the date of the suit, the suit having been filed in August 1919, and further that even if he had no such knowledge, under the provisions of Rule 50 of Order XXI the transferees of the original decree-holder could not execute the decree against that part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business, the fact of his death would be known. But the case put forward by Keshavji is that he did not know at the date of the suit that Raghunathdas Premji was a partner in the firm of Raghunathdas Mulji. That is a question upon which there is a conflict of statements in the affidavits, and in that state of the evidence it is quite impossible to say that the view taken by the lower Court is wrong. It seems to me inconceivable that if Keshavji knew that Raghunathdas Premji, who apparently was a well-to-do merchant, was a partner and that he was dead, he would not take care to serve the summons on his legal representative. The present appeal must, therefore, be decided on the footing that the original plaintiff had no knowledge of the disso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empt from the liability to satisfy the decretal debt unless, of course, the partner has been served with a summons of the suit, That is a position which does not appear to me to be just nor does it appear to have been contemplated by Sub-rule (2). I am slow to accept the construction suggested on behalf of the appellant which involves such a result. Further I do not think that on the wording of Sub-rule (2) that construction is proper. That sub-rule provides that where the decree-holder claims to be entitled to cause the decree to be executed against any person other than such a person as is referred to in Sub-rule (1), Clauses (b) and (c), as being a partner in the firm, he may apply to the Court which passed the decree for leave to execut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
