Chaturvedi, J. - (1.)THIS first appeal filed by the Defendant is directed against a judgment and a decree dated 27 -9 -1952, passed by the Additional District Judge Mandsaur.
(2.)THE Plaintiffs suit was for Rs. 16,805 -11 -0 and a decree has been passed in his favour for Rs. 10, 887 -6 -3. The Defendant has filed his appeal against this decree and the Plaintiff has cross -objections for that portion of the suit -which has been dismissed.
The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant wanted to have a factory for manufacturing brass -utensils and other implements at Ratlam, and therefore, he wanted to have the Plaintiff as a partner in that business. The idea was that the Plaintiff should subscribe Rs. 40,000 for the business and that the Defendant and his friend, one Panditji, should finance Rs. 35,000. It was with this idea that the Plaintiff upto 5 -9 -1948 advanced a sum of Rs. 20,622 -2 -0 but the Defendant asked him to contribute more than Rs. 40,000 for which the Plaintiff was not prepared, and therefore, the idea of partnership did not materialize.

The Plaintiff then asked for refund of his money and on 12 -9 -49 he got a refund Rs. 7000/ -: but a sum of Rs. 13,622 -2 -0 was not returned by the Defendant, and therefore, he instituted this suit for that sum plus interest at the rate of As. 0 -8 -0 per cent per month. The Plaintiff filed this suit in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, alleging that the parties belonged to Neemuch, within the Jurisdiction of the 'District Court of Mandsaur.

(3.)THE Defendant (Sitaram) resisted the suit on various grounds alleging that the cause of action arose at Ratlam and not at Neemuch, and the Mandsaur Court had no jurisdiction and that the suit was barred by time. He denied his liability to pay any sum to the Plaintiff stating that he had not received any money the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendant and one Pandit Ramnarayan had formed a partnership and established a firm at Ratlam known as 'Shri. Madhya Bharat Metal Industries' for the manufacture of brass utensils, iron Tagaries (iron basins) and other implements.
The Defendant further alleged that the Plaintiff had agreed to advance other necessary finance besides Rs. 40,000 and that it had been agreed that the Plaintiff's share in the partnership was to be six annas, the Defendant's the same and Ramnarayan's four annas. According to the Defendant, it was further stipulated, that the Defendant and Shri. Ramnarayan were to be working partners and should draw remuneration or working allowance at the rate of Rs. 250/ - permonth each.

The Defendant added that whatever money had been paid by the Plaintiff was paid according to this agreement to the partnership firm. But when due to difficulties in finance a demand was made for more money from the Plaintiff, the latter refused to pay and the business could not succeed. Consequently the business had to be stopped on Kartik Badi Amavas S.Y. 2005, and when the Plaintiff insisted that his dues as partnership should be paid, the Defendant on Baisakh Sudi 14. S.Y. 2006, sent a Hundi of Rs. 7000 - to the Plaintiff in full settlement of the Plaintiff's claim.

The Defendant alleged that the suit was entirely misconceived as there could not have been a suit for repayment of money, but the Plaintiff can only file a suit for accounts on the basis of partnership in which Ramnarayan should be a necessary party.

;