SUTHERSANAM MAISTRI Vs. NARASIMHULU MAISTRI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The Chief Justice stated the facts of the case and agreed with the learned Judge below that the alleged partnership between the plaintiff and the 1 defendant was not proved and proceeded as follows: In the view I take of the facts, it is not necessary for me to consider the question of limitation. With regard to this question, however, I am of opinion that if there ever was an agreement between the brothers in the nature of a partnership agreement, that agreement came to an end in 1894 and the plaintiff's claim is consequently barred by limitation.
(2.) The appeal is dismissed with costs. Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.
(3.) This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the Judgment of Mr. Justice Boddam in C.S. No. 159 of 1900, dated 16 January 1901, dismissing the suit with costs. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for taking an account of property alleged to have been jointly acquired by the plaintiff and the 1 defendant as undivided brothers, for ascertaining the respective shares of plaintiff and 1 defendant therein and for a decree awarding to him his share in such properties.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.