KAKA RAM SOHANLAL Vs. FIRM THAKAR DAS MATHRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRM Thakar Das Mathra Das of Ludhiana, through its proprietor Khazanchi Lal, brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 17,371/14/3 against firm Raj Foundry and iron Works, Ludhiana defendant No. 1, and its partners, Balbir Singh defendant no. 2 and Kaka Ram defendant No. 3, on the allegations that the defendant-firm started money dealings with the plaintiff-firm on the 3rd April, 1949, and these dealings continued up to the 6th November, 1953, that during this period the parties, after mutually understanding the accounts, had been entering the balance in their respective Bahis on the 31st of March of each year, that Rs. 16,319-15-3 was the balance due from the defendants on the 31st March, 1954, that every year defendant No. 2 on behalf of the defendant-firm used to admit the accounts to be correct and acknowledge the debt due to the plaintiff-firm, and that a sum of rs. 1,051-15-0 as interest at the rate of-/8/-per cent per menses from the 1st april, 1953, up to the date of the suit, according to the agreement, custom and law, was also due from the defendant, firm. The plaintiff-firm field transliterations from its books of account along with the plaint in support of its claim.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 namely, the firm, and defendant No. 2 Balbir Singh, who is son of Khazanchi Lal proprietor of the plaintiff-firm, supported the plaintiff's claim and submitted that the defendant-firm had been taking loans from the plaintiff-firm during the course of their money dealing from the 3rd April, 1949, up to november, 1953, that the defendant-firm had been borrowing the various amounts from the plaintiff-firm by means of letters and ruqqas, that on the 31st of march of each year both the firms had been, after comparing the entries appearing in their respective Bahis, admitting the accounts to be correct, that the account of the plaintiff-firm was correct, that the defendant-firm did not spend any amount from its pocket at the time of starting the business, and its entire business continued to be carried on with the money borrowed from the plaintiff-firm, that the entire machinery, building and lathes etc, were purchased with the money borrowed from the plaintiff-firm, that according to the agreement between defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 the entire capital was to be invested by defendant No. 2, that defendant No. 1 borrowed through defendant No. 2 the entire amount of capital as debt from the plaintiff-firm and spent the same in its business, that the account books of the defendant-firm for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53 were in possession of defendant No. 3 who during the illness of defendant no. 2 had carried them to his house, and that during the illness of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 3 produced the books of the firm in the Income-tax and Sales tax Departments and also filed statements therefrom through the counsel of the defendant-firm.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by defendant No. 3 who pleaded that neither he nor the defendant-firm either borrowed any amount from the plaintiff-firm or struck the alleged balances or any amount was due from him or the defendant-firm. He further pleaded that he had no knowledge if Balbir Singh defendant No. 2 having colluded with his father Khazanchi Lal, proprietor of the plaintiff-firm, had got fictitious entries made. It was also contended that Balbir Singh had no authority at all to take loans on behalf of the defendant-firm, and that defendant No. 2 had filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against him, any defendant No. 2 had got the present suit filed by his father to put pressure on him.