Skip to content


Hoshiar Singh Vs. Udai Ram Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract;Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929All542; 117Ind.Cas.108
AppellantHoshiar Singh
RespondentUdai Ram Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the plaintiff was one of several partners in a firm. two of the members of the firm executed a promissory note in plaintiff's favour agreeing to pay him a certain sum of money as being the amount due to the plaintiff on taking partnership accounts. the plaintiff sued not only the executants of the promissory note but the other partners. the question before the court below was whether the promissory note given by two of the five partners bound the other two defendant partners. the court below has answered the question in the negative, and we are of opinion that the court below was right.2. the learned counsel for the plaintiff applicant had taken his stand on sections 249, 251 and 263, contract act. they do not lay down that one of the partners, as between themselves, can bind another.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application to revise a judgment passed by a Judge, Small Cause Court. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiff was one of several partners in a firm. Two of the members of the firm executed a promissory note in plaintiff's favour agreeing to pay him a certain sum of money as being the amount due to the plaintiff on taking partnership accounts. The plaintiff sued not only the executants of the promissory note but the other partners. The question before the Court below was whether the promissory note given by two of the five partners bound the other two defendant partners. The Court below has answered the question in the negative, and we are of opinion that the Court below was right.

2. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff applicant had taken his stand on Sections 249, 251 and 263, Contract Act. They do not lay down that one of the partners, as between themselves, can bind another partner where the dealing is not with a third party. The authority which a partner holds on behalf of other partners to deal with third persons is the subject matter of the legislation in those sections. Illustrations given to Section 251 made this clear. The application has no merits and is dismissed with costs.


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