9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (12) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok his place and that the business has continued up to the present day as an ancestral business of the joint Hindu family of Naman Ram. The plaintiff firm started dealings with Ram Narain-Ladha Ram in the year 1924 through Narsingh Das who was one of the partners of the latter firm. The last balance was executed by Narsingh Das on behalf of the firm Ram-Narain Ladha Ram on 4th October 1930 for ₹ 8,544-10-6. Two transactions took place after the execution of the balance and the amount due to the plaintiff on 19th May 1933 was ₹ 4,943-1-0, on account of principal, and ₹ 1,685, on account of interest. A decree for ₹ 6,628-1-0 was therefore claimed against the defendant firm, as well as against Ladha Ram, all the descendants of Ram-Kishan and Narsingh Das. 3. Narsingh Das, defendant 10, confessed judgment, and Ladha Ram, defendant 1 did not attend, and proceedings were ex parte against him. Pran Nath and Hans Raj, the sons of Ram Narain, pleaded that though their father Ram Narain was a partner in the firm Ram Narain-Ladha Ram, it was not a joint family business but a contractual partnership, that the partnership dissolved on the death of their father, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o way responsible for the liabilities of the firm Ram Narain-Ladha Ram and that the suit should have been dismissed as against him. Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment. It would be convenient in this judgment to designate the firm Ram Narain-Ladha Ram as the Sargodha firm and the firms Ram Kishen-Ladha Ram and Kanhaya Lal-Ladha Ram as the Tankiwala firm. 5. It was contended by Mr. Sethi on behalf of the plaintiffs that Rattan Chand and Khan: Chand were members of a joint Hindu family as was clear from the fact that one and a half kanals of agricultural land was jointly owned by them. As these two persons were carrying on money-lending business, one-and-a-half kanals of land must be held to be the property of the joint firm. On the death of Rattan Chand the firm Khan Chand-Rattan Chand at Tankiwala was named Ram Kishen-Khan Chand, Ram Kishen being the only son of Rattan Chand. When Khan Chand died the business came to be known as Amir Chand-Ram Kishen, Amir Chand having taken the place of his father Khan Chand. On the death of Amir Chand, Ladha Ram succeeded and the firm was known as Ram Kishen-Ladha Ram and, on the death of Ram Kishen in the year 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural land jointly did not show that they were members of a joint Hindu family firm. It was open to the uncle and the nephew to acquire property jointly or to carry on business jointly. The business started by the uncle and nephew, however, would merely be a contractual partnership and would be governed by the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. By starting a business jointly the uncle and the nephew could not convert a contractual partnership into a joint Hindu family ancestral business by their own act. Reference may be made in this connection to para. 234 of Mulla's Hindu Law which runs as follows: In Hindu Law a business is a distinct heritable asset. Where a Hindu dies leaving a business, it descends like other heritable property to his heirs. If he dies leaving male issue, it descends to them. In the hands of the male issue it becomes joint family business, and the firm which consists of the male issue becomes a joint family firm. The joint ownership so created between the male issue is not an ordinary partnership arising out of a contract, but a family partnership created by the operation of law. Therefore, the rights and liabilities of the coparceners constituting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be joint Hindu family property, but such partnership will not be governed by the provisions of Hindu law relating to coparcenary property. It is possible for an uncle and a nephew to possess joint family property by throwing all their property into the common fund, but it is not possible for an uncle and a nephew to start business jointly and then give to it the character of an ancestral joint Hindu family business. The Sargodha firm was started in 1911. Admittedly, a stranger was made one of the partners in this firm. The debts which form the basis of the present suit were contracted by the Sargodha firm between the years 1922 and 1930. During that period Ladha Ram and Ram Narain are alleged to have been carrying on the Sargodha firm on behalf of the Tankiwala firm. We have therefore to see whether the two branches of the family of Naman Ram were joint between 1922 and 1930, or whether a disruption had taken place before 1924. It was held in Yellapya Ramappa v. Tipanna 1929 PC 8, by their Lordships of the Privy Council that: The strength of the presumption that a Hindu joint family continues to be joint necessarily varies in each case. The presumption is stronger in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ankiwala firm is not a joint Hindu family concern and that there had been a disruption of the joint Hindu family before 1924. The next question for consideration is, whether the Sargodha firm was a branch of the Tankiwala firm or whether it was an independent business started by Ram Narain Ladha Ram and Narsingh Das. Reliance was placed on behalf of the plaintiffs on an entry in the such bahi of the Tankiwala firm marked as Ex. D-57. This entry shows that ₹ 7,.000 were advanced to Ladha Ram and Ram Narain for starting the Sargodha firm. The concluding words of the entry are: Three shares belong to the firm Bhai Ram Kishen Ladha Ram Chichras at Tankiwala and the fourth share in profits and losses is given to Narsingh Das Gorowara. 13. It was urged by Mr. Sethi that this entry conclusively showed that it was the firm at Tankiwala that started the Sargodha firm and allowed Narsinghdas one-fourth share in this new firm. It was maintained that the joint Hindu family business at Tankiwala, or all the living members of the family of Naman Ram, became partners in the Sargodha firm in virtue of their ownership of the Tankiwala firm. In our opinion, the entries in the bahi do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm Ram Narain-Ladha Ram. Another letter of similar description was written to the Manager, Punjab National Bank, on 1st July 1928, and therein Ram Narain, Ladha Ram, and Narsingh Das are described as all the partners and proprietors of the firm Ram Narain-Ladha Ram. A copy of the assessment order for the year 1928-29 with respect to the Tankiwala firm shows that it was represented to the Income Tax authorities that the firm Ram Narain-Ladha Ram was a separate entity and that the firm had been constituted by means of a regular partnership deed executed on 21st January 1929. We therefore hold that the Sargodha firm was an independent business concern and was not a branch of the Tankiwala firm. 15. The next question for consideration is whether Kanhaya Lal was a partner in the Sargodha firm. Kanhaya Lal has denied on oath that he ever joined the Sargodha firm. Some evidence has been produced on behalf of the plaintiffs to show that Kanhaya Lal sometimes used to sit at the Sargodha shop. This evidence is very vague and inconclusive and does not show that Kanhaya Lal was a partner of the Sargodha firm. Ladha Ram and Narsingh Das are trying to rope in Kanhaya Lal and all other memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
