Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-12-1970
Reported in : 1970WLN254
..... to 6 constitute a joint hindu family and carry on business under the name and style: firm bhonrey lal hiralal, which was also registered under the indian partnership act. it was alleged that one thakur shivelal singh, muafidar of thikana burja sold a place of land measuring 370,10 'x'3' situated in the ..... written statement filed by him it was pleaded that the plaintiffs did not constitute a joint hindu family and that their firm was unregistered under the partnership act and consequently the firm was not cempetent to file the suit. the ownership of shivelal singh to the land in dispute was also denied, and ..... from the person bringing the suit or that the notice did not otherwise comply with the requirements of section 116. of the transfer of property act, i, therefore, find myself in agreement with lower appellate court that the defendant cannot defeat the plaintiff's claim on the ground of validity of ..... payment of rent attorned to the successor in interest of the deceased landlyrd he was held to be estopped under section 116 of the evidence act from denoing the title of successor landlord. in this connection the learned judges observed as follows:the decision of the judicial committee in krishna prasad ..... that the relationship of landlord and tenant has come into existence. the presumption however is a rebuttable one and may be rebutted by showing that the acts and conduct of the parties are inconsistent with the existence.23. kai khushroo v. bai jorbai air 1949 pc 124 b.k. mukherjea j., .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-30-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Raj88
..... to the consignee had not the effect of reviving the contract which had become illegal and void. plaintiffs, therefore, cannot legally enforce their contract of partnership against the defendant. i, therefore,, find issue no. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs and issue no. 5 against them. in view of the ..... applied to jaipur state and the finding of the learned district judge on this point is not correct.16. now how was the contract of partnership between the parties affectedby the declaration of georges lambercier as 'enemy firm' is to be considered. did the contract between the parties become unlawful ..... its inability to decide the matter and so the present suit has been filed.3. the defendant contested the suit, denied the agreement of partnership between the parties through gordhan das and stated that after he had placed an order for the supply of synthetic stones with georges lambercier. gordhan ..... directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th march, 1961, of the district judge. jaipur district, jaipur, in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. the learned district judge by his decree has declared that damodar and his two sons dwarka das and gordhandas are entitled to ..... while the court was dealing with the doctrine of public policy. however, the present case is fully covered by section 56 of the indian contract act and because it was an executory contract and on account of the outbreak of war and the declaration of georges lambercier as an enemy firm .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-15-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Raj286; 1970(3)WLN792
..... his written statement and denied the plaintiff's suit. he admitted that defendants nos. 1 to 3 used to carry on business as 'adativa' in partnership in gold and silver under the name. firm jairoop chunnilal in section 2001 and closed the same on asad sudi 15. section 2002. however, he ..... the case of the plaintiff-respondent ghanshyamdas is that defendants nos. 1 to 3 chunilal. nemichand and mitha lal were working as commission agents in partnership under the name and style of firm. jairoop chunnilal at jodhpur in connection with sale and purchase of gold and silver bars and ganeshmal defendant no ..... this brings me to the question of limitation. it has been strenuously argued on behalf of the appellant that article 89 of the marwar limitation act which prescribes a period of three years applies in the present case. article 89 reads as under:--'89. by aprincipal against his agent for movable ..... has to pay a particular sum of money to the plaintiff. a distinction was however, brought out between an acknowledgment under section 19 of the limitation act 1908 which may be unilateral transaction and a document bilateral in nature, bhandari j. (tyagi j., agreeing with him) observed as follows:'i do ..... such an acknowledgment may not be sufficient to form the basis of the suit. unless there are bilateral acts which give rise to an agreement enforceable at law under the provisions of the indian contract act, there can be no question of a unilateral transaction forming the basis of a suit.'11. in the .....Tag this Judgment!