1928 (8) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Lalji's contention is that a firm is only a compendious mode of expressing the partners of which that firm is composed, and that a partner can therefore avail himself of the provisions of this Act relating to agriculturists. It is an important question because if it is held that such a contention may be set up, there will often be considerable difficulties in the way of suing parties who carry on business in Bombay. I quite agree that ordinarily a firm does, in law, only mean the partners of which it is composed of, but I do not think that it necessarily follows that a definition like that of "agriculturist' in the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act is, on that account, applicable to any partner in that firm. It is recogni .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arily be an agriculturist as defined in the Act, because he does not earn his livelihood by agriculture within the meaning of the definition, but is dependent on others, and though the latter may earn their livelihood by agriculture, that in itself does not make him an agriculturist. A third consideration is that under Order XXX, Rule 1, the main essential in the right to sue, or the liability to be sued, in the name of a firm is the fact of "two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in British India." I stress the words "carrying on business". That is what the Legislature puts in the forefront instead of the actual residence of the partners, and the personal residence of a partner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... action has arisen. 4. This result is consistent also with another view that it is possible to take. It has been urged by Mr. Munshi that the word 'person' in the definition of "agriculturist" cannot by reason of the context be taken to cover a body of individuals, such as it would otherwise include under the definition of the word in Clause (39) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. That definition is subject to the opening proviso "unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or contest", and there are, in my opinion, good grounds for saying that the definition ordinarily contemplates the case of an individual, who actually earns his livelihood by agriculture or ordinarily engages personally in a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X