Skip to content


Subbarayudu Vs. Adinarayudu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad134
AppellantSubbarayudu
RespondentAdinarayudu
Cases ReferredSedgwick v. Daniell
Excerpt:
partnership - advance made by one partner to another in respect of the latter's share of a partner skip debt--whether a salt for contribution lies. - .....defendant that the suit did not lie, and that the claim is one which ought to be adjusted when the partnership account is settled. the district munsif decreed the claim.2. it is urged on revision that the suit does not lie and is not cognizable by a small cause court. it is no doubt a settled rule of law that advances made by one partner to the partnership concern can only result in matters of account and cannot be made the subject of a separate suit. but to this general rule there are exceptions when advances are made by one partner not to the partnership concern, but to the other partner in respect of what he is to contribute to the joint capital as in french v. styring 2 c.b.n.s. 365; or when two partners borrow from a bank on their joint promissory note and apply the money borrowed.....
Judgment:

Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiff and the original defendant were partners. The former paid the amount due by the latter under a decree passed in Original Suit No. 911 of 1890. Thereupon he brought the present suit in the Small Cause Court for contribution. It was contended for defendant that the suit did not lie, and that the claim is one which ought to be adjusted when the partnership account is settled. The District Munsif decreed the claim.

2. It is urged on revision that the suit does not lie and is not cognizable by a Small Cause Court. It is no doubt a settled rule of law that advances made by one partner to the partnership concern can only result in matters of account and cannot be made the subject of a separate suit. But to this general rule there are exceptions when advances are made by one partner not to the partnership concern, but to the other partner in respect of what he is to contribute to the joint capital as in French v. Styring 2 C.B.N.S. 365; or when two partners borrow from a bank on their joint promissory note and apply the money borrowed to the partnership concern and one of the partners is compelled to pay more than his share of the debt, the transactions have been considered to be separate and altogether dehors the partnership, and as such capable of sustaining an action for contribution. The present case is governed by the same principle. Under the decree each partner was bound to pay the whole decree-debt and bound to indemnify the other against the payment of more than his share. This cannot be considered as a partnership transaction, see Sedgwick v. Daniell 2 H. & N. 319 The petition cannot be supported and is dismissed with costs.


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