Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1595 (PNJ)

Kooners Poultry Farm v. Ram Niwas Sham Lal

2003-11-21

K.C.GUPTA

body2003
Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted by M/s Kooners Poultry Farm against judgment and decree dated 26.2.2001 passed by District Judge, Faridkot whereby he accepted the appeal filed by respondentdefendants and set aside the judgment and decree dated 8.9.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga whereby the suit of the appellant (plaintiff) was decreed along with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of decree till the realisation of the entire amount. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant firm was a registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act and Kartar Singh and Iqbal Singh were its partners. It had been dealing in poultry feed. On 22.8.1989, the respondents (defendants) purchased poultry feed from the appellants worth Rs. 3,04,000/- on credit. The respondents agreed to pay the said amount with interest @ 18% per annum. However, the respondents failed to pay the amount and as such, suit for recovery for Rs. 3,04,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,09,000/- as interest at the agreed rate, totaling Rs. 4,13,440 was filed. The respondents (defendants) contested the suit and filed written statement taking preliminary objection that M/s Ram Niwas Sham Lai was a partnership firm having Ram Niwas, Sham Lal and Panni Devi as partners and further Butter Rice Mill was also a partnership firm having Kartar Singh, Iqbal Singh and Bhagwant Singh as partners to the extent of one half share and Ram Narain, Ram Niwas and Sham Lai were partners to the extent of remaining one half share. The appellant firm had been dealing with Butter Rice Mill and also with M/s Ram Niwas Sham Lal and on 3.1.1990, M/s Ram Niwas Sham Lal firm had to take Rs. 18,38,140/- from M/s Butter Rice Mill while Kooners Poultry Farm was under debt to Butter Rice Mill to the tune of Rs. 7,03,212 and as such suit was not maintainable. On merits the appellant firm through Kartar Singh, partner, had instructed the firm M/s Ram Niwas Sham Lai to pay an amount of Rs. 3,04,000/- to Butter Rice Mill on 1.1.1990 and this way the amount due from the respondent firm to the appellant was paid to Butter Rice Mill and Butter Rice Mill was to take Rs. On merits the appellant firm through Kartar Singh, partner, had instructed the firm M/s Ram Niwas Sham Lai to pay an amount of Rs. 3,04,000/- to Butter Rice Mill on 1.1.1990 and this way the amount due from the respondent firm to the appellant was paid to Butter Rice Mill and Butter Rice Mill was to take Rs. 8,03,712/- from Kooners Poultry Farm and Butter Rice Mill had filed a suit against the appellant firm for the recovery of amount after adjustment of Rs. 3,04,000/-. Thus, the appellant firm had already been compensated about amount claimed by them. Similarly, M/s Ram Niwas Sham Lal had filed a suit against Butter Rice. Mill other allegations were denied. 3. With these pleadings, the following issues were framed; " 1. Whether the plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm and the present suit has been filed through registered partner? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any interest from the defendants if so, at what rate and to what amount? OPP 3. Whether the defendants have adjusted an amount of Rs. 3,04,000/- by payinent to Butter Rice Mills on 3.1.1990 at the instructions of the plaintiff? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount from the defendants,? If so, how much and from whom? OPD 5. Relief." 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, vide judgment dated 8,9,1997, decreed the suit by holding under Issue No.l that the appellant firm is a registered partnership firm and the suit had been filed through Kartar Singh, a registered partner, under Issue Nos.2, 3 and 4, it was held that the respondents (defendants) version was not trust-worthy and it is not proved on file that they had paid the amount to the appellant firm through M/s Butter Rice Mill and the writing Ex.DW-3/J dated 1.1.1990 was not believable and, thus, the amount of Rs. 3,04,000/- was due from the respondent firm. It was further held that respondents were liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum. Consequently, the suit was decreed. 5. 3,04,000/- was due from the respondent firm. It was further held that respondents were liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum. Consequently, the suit was decreed. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed appeal, which was accepted by District Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2001 and it was held that the adjustment through entry, Ex.DW-3/J is not a mere paper transaction or book entry in the books of accounts of the respondent firm and that of M/s.Butter Rice Mill but the matter had been settled finally between these firms and it has to be taken into account and if this writing was taken into account, then no amount was due to the appellant firm. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. 6. Still dissatisfied, the plaintiff firm has filed the present appeal. 7. I have heard Shri M.K. Garg, counsel for the appellant, Shri S.K. Garg, counsel for the respondents and carefully gone through the file. 8. There is no dispute about it that on 31.3.1990, the appellant firm had to pay a sum of Rs. 7,03,212.50 to M/s Butter Rice Mill as is clear from the statement of PW-1 Kartar Singh and also from the documents placed on file by the parties. The documents further show that a sum of Rs. 3,04,000/- was adjusted by M/s Butter Rice Mill, Badni Kalan and the same, was credited to the appellants account and the firm filed a suit against the appellant firm on 14.2.1991 for the recovery of Rs. 3,99,212.50 plus interest of Rs. 2,60,912.50, the balance due against the appellant firm, after deducting the amount of Rs. 3,04,000/-. This is evident from the document, Ex.D-5. 9. The matter does not end here. The writing, Ex.DW-3/j DATED 1.1.1990 executed by Kartar Singh had directed the respondent from to pay a sum of Rs. 3,04,000/- to M/s Butter Rice Mill, Badhni Kalan, on behalf of the appellant firm, as the said firm was to pay a sum of Rs. 8,03,712.50. The adjustment of the amount was made by transfer entries on 3.1.1990 in the books of accounts of the respondent firm. There is no evidencethat the books of account were not kept regularly and in the ordinary course of business. 10. 8,03,712.50. The adjustment of the amount was made by transfer entries on 3.1.1990 in the books of accounts of the respondent firm. There is no evidencethat the books of account were not kept regularly and in the ordinary course of business. 10. The counsel for the appellant contended that there are some omissions or irregularities in the Bahis of M/s Butter Rice Mill as well as the respondent firm and as such the entries in their books of account cannot be relied upon to fasten the liability to the appellant firm. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. Each case depends upon its facts. It is true that in the Bahi Khata of M/s Butter Rice Mill, en- try of Rs. 3,04,000/- has been shown to have been made on 31.1.1990, whereas a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- has been shown to have been paid by M/s Kooners Poultry Farm i.e., the appellant firm on 22.1.1990 but this entry was made before entry dated 3.1.1990. This mistake appears to be due to oversight because Kartar Singh had given instructions, vide writing dated 1.1.1990 Ex.DW-3/J to the respondent firm to pay a sum of Rs. 3,04,000/to M/s Butter Rice Mill, Badhni Kalan, Tehsil and District Moga. 11. The counsel for the appellant also contended that the entry Ex.DW-3/j was not signed by Kartar Singh. Kartar Singh is not an illiterate person. He is an Advocate and expert business man. He did not dare to deny in the written statement that the writing Ex.DW-3/J did not contain his signatures or that his signatures wen obtained on blank paper. It cannot also be said that Kartar Singh did not know the contents of the said writing. Once the signatures are proved, then since, Kartar Singh was an inteiligent peron having the background of a Lawyer, so,it cannot be said that he did not know the contents of the said writing. The knowledge of the contents,in the circumstances, had to be attributed to Kartar Singh. The respondents had also produced DW-2 Anil Kumar Gupta, Document Expert, Fazilka who had categorically slated that the signatures on the writing Ex.DW-3/J were that of Kartar Singh. The knowledge of the contents,in the circumstances, had to be attributed to Kartar Singh. The respondents had also produced DW-2 Anil Kumar Gupta, Document Expert, Fazilka who had categorically slated that the signatures on the writing Ex.DW-3/J were that of Kartar Singh. The appellant had also produced PW-3 R.S.Bal, Document Expert who had to admit in his cross examination that he did not compare the disputed signatures with the standard signatures and as such was not in a position to say that the signatures of Ex.DW-3/J were of Kartar Singh or not. The mere statement that body writing of Ex.DW-3/J was written on the already signed paper from Kartar Singh cannot serve the purpose because he had not given any convincing reason for taking this view. The space in between the body writing in the last line is not such which could raise any suspicion. It has already been observed that once it is proved that the writing contained the signatures of Kartar Singh, then the knowledge of the writing on Ex.DW-3/J had to be imputed to Kartar Singh. 12. Therefore, in view of the discussions made above I hold that Kartar Singh who was partner of the appellant firm had directed the respondent-defendants firm to pay a sum of Rs. 3,04,000/- to M/s Butter Rice Mill, Badhni Kalan on behalf of the appellant firm as the appellant firm was to pay a sum of Rs. 7,03,212.50 to M/s Butter Rice Mill and accordingly respondent no had paid the said amount. Thus, regarding this amount suit could not have been filed by the appellant-firm. Consequently, there is no reason to differ from the findings of the learned District Judge, Faridkot. I concur with the same and accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.