KESRIMAL Vs. DALICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the plaintiffs. Kesrimal and another in a suit for money against" the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra dated 28-5-1954 by which he upheld the dismissal of the suit by virtue of the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this revision may shortly be stated as follows:

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs Kesrimal and Pukhraj was that they were carrying on business in the name of Kesrimal Pukhraj and that they were partners of a firm, which was registered and that there were no other partners in the firm except these two. It was then alleged that there were money dealings between the plaintiffs' firm and Pratapmal deceased, father of the defendants opposite parties from samwat 2001 migsar vad 4th to Samwat 2006 kartik vad 14 and that the said Pratapmal on the last mentioned day, after going through the accounts, executed a khata in favour of the plaintiffs' firm for a sura of Rs. 379/1/- and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum. The defendants opposite parties were called upon to pay oft the debts of their deceased father, but without any result. Consequently, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 442/5/- including principal and inerest on the 6th October, J952 in the court of the Munsiff, Balotro. Defendant Dalichand allowed the suit to proceed ex parte against himself. The other two defendants bapulal and Pukhraf were minors and filed a written statement through their court guar-dian in which they pleaded ignorance of the suit dealings as also of the plaintiffs' firm having been registered. Both the courts below held that the document (Ex. 1/4) alleged to have been executed by Pratapmal in favour of the plaintiffs' firm was proved to have been executed by him, but they dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs' firm was not registered and also that they had failed to show that they were entitled to sue the defendants on behalf of the firm Kesrimal Pukhraj as its partners. The plaintiffs have consequently come up in revision to this Court.