Skip to content


Fauji Lal Vs. Changa Mal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR19All513
AppellantFauji Lal
RespondentChanga Mal
Excerpt:
act no. ix of 1887 (provincial small cause courts act), schedule ii, article 29(c) - suit by a retired partner for the consideration due for his retirement--jurisdiction--small cause court. - - the subordinate judge in appeal has set aside that decree, being of opinion that the suit was one which fell distinctly within the jurisdiction of a small cause court, and has returned the plaint to be presented to that court......him a decree, holding that the case was one within his jurisdiction as munsif. the subordinate judge in appeal has set aside that decree, being of opinion that the suit was one which fell distinctly within the jurisdiction of a small cause court, and has returned the plaint to be presented to that court. it is now contended by the plaintiff in appeal that the suit is one which is not cognizable by the court of small causes and that the decision of the subordinate judge to that effect was wrong. we have examined the plaint. the suit as laid is a suit by a person who was once a member of a partnership, from which partnership he says he retired under an agreement that the surviving partners would thereafter pay him a certain sum for his-interest in. the business. that sum was never.....
Judgment:

Knox and Burkitt, JJ.

1. The appellant in this second appeal is the plaintiff. He took a plaint to the Court of Small Causes at Agra, and the Judge of that Court refused to entertain it, holding that the matter was not one within his jurisdiction. The plaintiff then went to the Court of the Munsif, who gave him a decree, holding that the case was one within his jurisdiction as Munsif. The Subordinate Judge in appeal has set aside that decree, being of opinion that the suit was one which fell distinctly within the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court, and has returned the plaint to be presented to that Court. It is now contended by the plaintiff in appeal that the suit is one which is not cognizable by the Court of Small Causes and that the decision of the Subordinate Judge to that effect was wrong. We have examined the plaint. The suit as laid is a suit by a person who was once a member of a partnership, from which partnership he says he retired under an agreement that the surviving partners would thereafter pay him a certain sum for his-interest in. the business. That sum was never paid, and he now sues to recover it. It was sought by the learned advocate for the appellant to bring the case within Clause 29(c) of the second Schedule attached to Act No. IX of 1887. But this is not a suit for the balance of a partnership account, as the partnership, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, does not exist. Clause 29(c) contemplates a suit to ascertain the profits and loss of a business and to have a balance of a partnership account struck, and was never intended to extend to the recovery of a mere debt due to a retired partner from the firm.

2. The appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //