KRISHNABAI Vs. VARJIVANDAS JAGJIVANDAS
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The plaintiff as the executrix and legal representative of her husband Nanabhaoo Mahapure deceased claims from the defendants a sum of money lent and advanced by the deceased to a business firm carried on in the name of Jamnadas Brothers in which the defendants at the date of the loan were interested as partners or as members of a joint and undivided Hindu family. Defendant No. 1 has filed no written statement and relies only on the legal defence of limitation as being a bar to the suit. Defendant No. 3 is the Official Assignee, being the assignee of the estate and effects of Lambadas Jagjivandas who has been adjudicated an insolvent, He does not defend the suit. Exhibit B shows that the monetary dealings between the plaintiff s husband and the firm of Sha. Lambadas Brothers commenced on 3 February 2, 1922, when the plaintiff s deceased husband lent and advanced to the firm a sum of Bs. 600. On May 3, 1922, he advanced to the firm a further sum of Rs. 3,000 in respect of which the firm passed to him a receipt Exhibit C. Exhibit 0 was signed in the firm s name by defendant No. 1. The firm of Sha. Lambadas Brothers issued to the plaintiff s husband a book in the nature of a Samadaskat book in which debit and credit entries were made from time to time in respect of the money dealings between the parties. Exhibit B comprises all the entries contained in this book,
(2.) The firm was started about thirty years ago by Jagjivandas who was the father of the defendants. In his life-time his eldest son Lambadas assisted him in the business which was that of chemists and druggists. On the death of Jagjivandas, Lambadas managed the business, his two brothers defendants Nos. 1 and 2 being then at school. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on leaving school joined Lambadas and were actively participating in the management of this firm. They wore members of a joint and undivided family at this date and wore conducting the joint family business as such when the loan transactions took place. It is not shown that there were any other coparceners belonging to the joint and undivided family besides the throe brothers. It is conceded that all three brothers would be personally liable in respect of the suit claim if the claim is in time.
(3.) By a deed of partition executed on November 23, 1922, the three brothers came to a partition among themselves. Thereafter Lambadas as sole owner continued the firm in its old name of Jaomadas Brothers. No public notice was given of the dissolution of the original firm or of the three brothers having come to a partition whereby the assets and liabilities of the original firm together with its name and goodwill were assigned to Lambadas only. Defendant No. 2 after the partition worked in the firm on a salary of Rs. 100 per mensem. On November 9, 1923, accounts were made up between the plaintiff s deceased husband and defendant No. 2 purporting to act on behalf of the firm of Jamnadas Brothers. Defendant No. 2 signed an acknowledgment as "Sha. Lambadas Brothers the handwriting of Nandlal Jagjivandas " acknowledging Rs. 3919 as being the then balance claimable on making up the accounts. This acknowledgment is part of Exhibits.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.