9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PW-3/1). The building and power connection fell to the share of Sham Sunder whereas machinery, goodwill, assets and liabilities except one item fell to the share of Sada Nand. The exception of liability was to the extent of Rs. 12,500 which was specifically mentioned to be met by Sham Sunder. In the accounts of the partnership firm, certain amounts of money stood invested in the names of the present plaintiffs, Smt. Vishan Devi and others. These amounts were also shown in the balance-sheets and in the returns filed before the income-tax authorities. Smt. Vishan Devi and others filed separate suits for the recovery of those amounts against the firm being impleaded through Sada Nand as well as Sham Sunder, defendants. All these suits were co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the defendant. In view of the settled position of law as above, there is no scope for raising an argument by the defendant-firm in the present case that though the amounts were shown in the account books of the firm in the names of Smt. Vishan Devi and others, the plaintiffs, in fact it was benami and the true owner of these amounts was Sham Sunder, the partner of the firm. In this view of the matter, it is not considered necessary to refer to the oral evidence produced by the parties regarding the true ownership of the amounts lying in the accounts of the firm. Since the amount was shown in the names of Vishan Devi and others, the plaintiffs, they are held entitled to receive the same as the same was not paid to them by the firm. Exhibit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh in the names of his wife and children, the present plaintiffs. I have given due consideration to the respective arguments. No doubt, under the dissolution deed, exhibit PW-3/1, it was the liability of Sada Nand to pay debts of the firm except one the liability for which was imposed on Sham Sunder which was to the extent of Rs. 12,500. The question for consideration is whether, in between the two partners, the amount which was recorded in the names of the plaintiffs was adjusted in the account of Sham Sunder or not. If credit was given to him while settling his account on dissolution of the firm, there is no reason to burden Sada Nand with the liability. The lower appellate court, after relying upon the statements of Sada Nand and Sham ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
