V RAMASAMI AIYANGAR Vs. SMAMARARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of separate suits filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. They all raise the same questions; they were heard together and were decided by the Subordinate Judge in one judgment. It will be convenient to adopt the same course here; but we propose to deal with Appeal No. 67 of 1939, in the first instance as our conclusions in that case will govern the decrees to be passed in the other three appeals.

(2.) Appeal No. 67 of 1939, arises out of O.S. No. 193 of 1936, which was instituted on the 2nd December, 1936. The suit was brought by one Arunachalam Chettiar, who died before the hearing. In consequence the executors of his will were substituted as the plaintiffs, but at a later stage the present appellants, the receivers of Arunachalam's estate, were also made plaintiffs, since when they have carried on the litigation. The suit was filed to recover Rs. 46,538-6-9, alleged to be due in respect of a sum deposited on the 8 July, 1930, with the Chettiar firm of N. M. S. Rm. carrying on business at Laijhieu in French Cochin-China. This firm had been formed at Pallathur in this Presidency by the first, second, third and fourth defendants (first, second, third and fourth respondents), and one Alagappa Chettiar, who died in 1931. It was formed for the purpose of carrying on business at Laithieu. On the 19 March, 1934, the deposit was renewed. The period was one of ninety days and the money became payable to the depositor on the 17 June, 1934.

(3.) In order to carry on business in French Cochin-China, registration of the firm was necessary, and for this purpose the third defendant was declared to be the proprietor. On the 12 March, 1936, the third defendant was adjudicated a bankrupt in Saigon. In their written statement the first and second defendants denied that they were partners in the firm and averred that the third defendant was the sole proprietor of the business. The third defendant admitted that the, deposit had been made, but pleaded his adjudication in bar. The fourth defendant did not appear and the case proceeded against him ex parte. The case against the legal representatives of Alagappa was abandoned in the trial Court.