Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 687 (MP)

Pukhraj v. Narendra Iron Steel Works, Indore

1978-09-15

G.G.SOHANI

body1978
Short Note : The plaintiff's case was that scrap-iron was supplied to the defendant by the plaintiffs from time to time and that a sum of Rs. 42 0.92 was due from the defendant to the plaintiffs on account of the price of scrap iron sold to the defendant. The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that as the plaintiff carried on business in partnership which was not registered, the suit was barred under the provisions of section 69 of the Partnership Act, hereinafter called the Act. This defence was upheld by the trial Court and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. On appeal, the judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court were upheld. Hence the plaintiff have preferred this second appeal. Held: The finding of the lower appellant Court in this behalf is based on the testimony of plaintiff Pukhraj. Though he deposed in examination-in-chief that he and his brother Parasmal, the co-plaintiff, were not carrying on business in partnership in cross-examination he admitted that he and his brother had commenced the business in partnership and that both the brothers had made contributions towards the capital invested in the business. In answer to the questions put by the Court, plaintiff Pukhraj admitted that his father was carrying on business separately and that the business in question was started by him and his brother. From this evidence on record, the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the business in question, giving rise to the suit transaction was a business carried on by them as members of a Hindu undivided family. This finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court is a finding based on the evidence on record and is not vitiated by any error of law. In view of the finding that the plaintiffs were carrying on business in partnership, the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff's suit was barred under section 69 of the Act. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. Appeal dismissed.