Skip to content


Narayana Chetti Vs. Lakshmana Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR21Mad256
AppellantNarayana Chetti
RespondentLakshmana Chetti
Cases ReferredLukmidas Khimji v. Purshotam Haridas I.L.R.
Excerpt:
contract act - act ix of 1872, section 43--joint promissors--suit for money against person currying on business of a dissolved partnership--objection taken on ground of non-joinder. - 1. according to the law declared in the contract act, section 43, especially when taken with section 29 of the civil procedure code, it is clear that it is not incumbent on a person dealing with partners to make them all defendants. he is at liberty to sue any one partner as he may choose, lukmidas khimji v. purshotam haridas i.l.r. 6 bom. 700.2. the petition must therefore be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. According to the law declared in the Contract Act, Section 43, especially when taken with Section 29 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that it is not incumbent on a person dealing with partners to make them all defendants. He is at liberty to sue any one partner as he may choose, Lukmidas Khimji v. Purshotam Haridas I.L.R. 6 Bom. 700.

2. The petition must therefore be dismissed with costs.


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