SARJOO PROSAD, C.J. - (1.)THE plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of Dave, J. passed on the 19th of September, 1958, reversing on appeal the decision of the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, dated 21st December, 1953, in Suit No. 10 of 1953. It arisesout of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,237/ -claimed to be due by the plaintiffs from the defendants on account of various transactions of sale and purchase which they carried on for the defendants as commission agents.
(2.)THE plaintiffs' case is that the defendant No. 1 and his sons, who are members of a joint Hindu family, carry on business at Gangapur in Madhya Bharat in the name and style of Bhuralah Mangilal. The plaintiffs are partners of a firm known as Hagamilal Ramprasad, and carry on business as commission agents at Gulabpura in the District of Bhilwara. The defendants' business consists of purchase and sale of cotton through the plaintiffs. During the period from Aswin Sudi 4, Samwat 2004, to Chaitra Sudi 14, Samwat 2005, the defendants under various forward contracts sold through the plaintiffs 275 bales of cotton and they also purchased an equal number of bales of cotton, as detailed in the plaint; and in these transactions the defendants sustained a loss of Rs. 6,826/11/6 including Arat and Dharmada charges, which were paid to third parties. The plaintiffs also incurred certain other small expenses towards postage etc., and the total amount thus due against the defendants came to Rs. 6,885/ 11/6, out of which after deducting the amount in hand and some payments made by the defendants the claim was laid at Rs. 4,857/2/ - for principal and Rs. 379/14/ - by way of interest, at Rs. -/7/9 per cent per mensem upto the date of the suit.
Three of the defendants, viz., Bhurala, Mangilal and Kanak Mal, presented a joint written statement, while Magni Ram filed a separate written statement for himself. The plea of the defendants was substantially identical. They totally denied the transactions and contested the suit on various grounds.

(3.)THE trial Court held that the transactions in question were duly proved both by oral and documentary evidence, and that the defendants were liable to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 5,237/ -including the charges for Arat, Dharmada and interest. The plea in regard to the maintainability of the suit was overruled, because the Court found that the Partnership Act was not in force ia Mewar when the suit was filed and the suit was maintainable even though the plaintiffs' firm was not registered. It was also held that the transactions were not of a wagering nature. The Court accordingly decreed the suit.
;