1925 (12) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Ganga Ram. 2. The defence is that the appellant is not and never was a partner in the firm in question. The suit was dismissed on the ground: (1) that it was barred by Order 2, Rule 2; and (2) that the plaintiff had not shown that he was a partner of this firm. 3. It appears that the parties to the present appeal were partners in certain saltpeter works at Chhapanwali and Gujranwala. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f to show that the conduct of the parties towards one another the mode in which they have dealt with one another and the mode in which each has with the knowledge of the other dealt with other people, raises a necessary presumption that a partnership was entered into. As a rule in the absence of direct evidence of partnership the relationship is shown by books of account by correspondence, by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... imself alone, and placed by him in the Ganga Ram-Gokal Chand concern. The only inference to be drawn from this circumstance is that Ganga Ram was drawing some of his own money out of the Chhapanwali partnership in order to help and finance his other enterprise. There is no evidence that the appellant himself but any money whatsoever into this latter concern. 6. The other circumstances relied on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X