BRIJENDRA SINGH PRITHVI SINGH Vs. GYANI CHAND KASTOOR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff sues to recover Rs. 5000. 00 with interest and notice charges Rs. 256-15-6 on the allegations that this amount had been advanced as a loan to the defendant on 25-4-1957 and 26-4-1957 by three different cheques receipt of which had been admitted by him. The advance of loan was, according to the plaintiff made on defendant's representation that he would utilize the amount for securing contract for exploiting the areas in certain blocks for Tendu leaves, secure removal of the leaves to Guna and adjust the advance against the cost price of the leaves making them over to the plaintiff. This latter representation or promise, it is said, could not he fulfilled. The plaintiff thus, plainly put, sues for the recovery of a loan advanced to the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant contended that he had not borrowed the aforesaid amount as a loan. It was the amount made over by the plaintiff to the defendant as his share of capital contribution in a partnership venture for exploiting forest produce of Tendu leaves in the areas for which the defendant would secure a contract from the adivasi Bahu Karya Karini Samiti for the purpose. The defendant it is said did secure contract with respect to Umri and Bajrang Gath Blocks, license for exploitation of which had been granted to Adivasi Bahu Karya Karini Sahakari samiti of which he was the President and the work of engaging labour for removal and collection of leaves actually had been commenced but a short while later it was cancelled by the Government and the venture therefore could not be carded to fruition. The legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in this business was that of partners and not that of creditor and debtor. It was denied that the defendant had taken the amount as a loan for doing his own Individual business of Tendu leaves and that he had assured the plaintiff to deliver Tendu leaves removed and collected as a result of this business at the cost price. The plaintiff, therefore, could not sue him for the money as a loan.

(3.) THE issues trained by the trial court on the basis of these contentions covered (1) Plaintiffs version of loan and promise to supply Tendu leaves at cost price, (2)Receipt of money by the defendant on that basis, and (3) Defendants' version as to payment being in pursuance of a partnership venture in Tendu leaves. The trial court on evidence found that the advance of Rs. 5,000/- proved to have been made by the plaintiff was not as a loan to the defendant. It was pursuant to a partnership venture and in the absence of any definite evidence as to independent right and obligation to claim back the amount advanced as aforesaid apart from the rights and obligations us between partners the plaintiff could not recover. His only remedy was to sue for accounts. The suit was accordingly dismissed.