113/57 but later he withdraw it and accordingly it was dismissed for number prosecution.
C. I One other fact must also be stated at this stage.
94/56 filed by Murli Prasad were companysolidated.
Brahmadeo Prasad, another partner who was a defendant in both the Title Suits Nos.
This deci sion was based on the view that the partnership companytravened the provisions of the Act and was accordingly illegal and void.
94/56 and Nandkishore Prasads Title Suit No.
Both the Title Suits No.
These two annas were offered to any of the partners who was willing and take in Ajodhya Prasad was agreeable to purchase these shares and the shares were re constituted and the amount that each one had to companytribute according to his share has been set out in that document.
The share, of Murli Prasad was divided between himself, Dharindhar Prasad each having one anna share, while the sons of Murli Prasad and Dharindhar Prasad, namely, Chandreshwar Prasad Gupta.and Kamleshwar Prasad Gupta and each 6 pies share.
From the Judgment and Decree Order dated the 7th May, 65 of the Patna High Court in Appeals from Original Decree N03.
After the Receiver had taken possession, the Government decided to purchase the undertaking on October 20, 1955 and deposited on the same day a sum of Rs.
Narain and Kedar Nath Sah applied for, and were added as defendants 12, 13 and 14 on the ground that they as members of the joint family of Parasnath Prasad, should be parties to the suit.
The 10 annas share held by Ajodhya Prasad and 3 annas share hold by Murli Prasad were divided among the members of their respective joint families.
The partnership was also characterised as illegal and void.
Murli Prasad filed First Appeal No.
160/59 against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in his Title Suit No.
1711/67 against the judgment and decree passed by the High .Court in First Appeal No.
Murli Prasad and Parasnath Prasad expressed their inability to companytribute the sum of Rs.
Against this decision of the High Court, Ramagya Prasad Gupta one of the respondents in the two First Appeals before the High Court filed two appeals in this Court, namely Civil Appeal No.
Thus, the share of Ayodhya Prasad increased to 10 annas while that of Murli Prasad and Parasnath Prasad reduced to 3 annas and one anna respectively.
The Civil Judge dismissed the appellants title suit, decreed his other suit partly, and decreed the two suits of the respondent.
1,50,000/ was urgently required for taking delivery of some new plant and machinery which had arrived at the Chhapra Railway Station.
C. Bhartari and D. N. Misra, for the Respondents No.
Similarly, ExtM 1, Ledger Account of Murli Prasad in the Central Bank, Chhapra, shows that on July 14, 1945 a sum of Rs.
The High Court dismissed the two appeals arising out of the respondents suits, one as time barred, and the other for failure to apply for translation and printing of the record.
51,250/ Gurbharan Shah Rs.
B. N. Sinha, R. N. Sahay, B. Kumar and S. N. Prasad, for the Appellants in CA 1710/67 .
3,00,000/ in the Court as part of the purchase money payable to the owners of the undertaking.
But since some of them were number able to get the money, Babu Parasnath proposed to sell his one annas share and retain his one anna only and Murli, Prasad, that is respondent No.
Parasnath Prasad the plaintiff in that suit prayed for appointment of the Additional District Magistrate, Chhapra, as receiver.
Against these order of dismissal, the appellant filed appeals to this Court and companytended that 1 title to the property was number directly and substantially it issue in the respondents suits 2 the Munsifs Court companyld number try the title suit filed by the appellant 3 it companyld number be said that appeals arising out of the respondents suits were former suits as such the bar of res judicata will be inapplicable and 4 the two appeals which were dismissed one on the ground of limitations and the other on the ground of number printing the records, companyld number be said to be heard and finally decided.
As the title of the respondent to the suit property had become final on account of such dismissal, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the other two appeals also, as the main question involved therein was the same.
The appellant filed appeals against the decree in each suit.
160 and 161 of 1959 and in First Appeal No.
It was decided to sell the electricity undertaking by public auction and assign the licence to the purchaser, with the previous sanction of the Government.
In pursuance of this decision, the liquidator invited bidders for purchasing the electricity companycern.
Nandkishore Prasad, however, retired from the partnership with the companysent of all the partners and his one anna share was taken over by Gurbharan Shah.
2,04,000 was paid into the account by cheque and credited to his account.
Some of the issues were companymon to all the suits and one of the companymons issues relating to the title of the parties was found in favour of the respondent.
The remaining two appeals filed by Murli Prasad were heard together and were disposed of by a companymon judgment by which the High Court reversed the Trial.
Ajodhya Prasad wanted 8 annas share, Parasnath Prasad two annas, Gurbharan Shah and Nandkishore Prasad 1 anna share each and that he Murli Prasad expressed his desire to have 4 annas share.
113/57 on September 21, 1957 for a declaration that he was still a partner and has 1 anna share.
In Sheodan Singhs case two suits were field in the Court of the Civil Judge, one for a declaration of the title to the suit property and the second for other reliefs and companysequently two other suits were filed by the respondents in the Munsifs companyrt against the appellant claiming joint ownership to the suit property and other reliefs.
1,50,0001 in proportion to their shares, so this amount was also paid by Ajodhya Prasad Gupta to whom Murli Prasad and Parasnath Prasad sold one anna share each out of their respective shares.
Ajodhya Prasads and his brother Ram Sharan Shah got 3 annas 9 pies each while the, two sons of Ram Sharan Shah, Brahmadev Prasad Gupta and Ramagya Prasad Gupta and respectively 1 anna 3 pies.
68 of 1 954, on May 28, 1954.
and that is, Ajodhya, Prasad and Murli Prasad being,.
68/54.
Nandkishore Prasad filed a First Appeal No.
9 lo in CA 1710/67 .
13 and who was a respondent in Civil Appeals Nos.
At the very threshold it was sought to be companytended that the appeals only abated as against Jagdish Narain for number bringing his legal representatives on record but number as a whole.
Thereafter the partners companytributed the amount in accordance with their respective shares.
During the pen dency of the suit, as stated earlier, the Government of Bihar acting under s. 4 1 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 hereinafter referred to as the Act revoked the licence of Murli Prasad with the result that according to s. 5 1 a of the Act all powers and liabilities of the licensee stood determined.
1711/67 and 1985/68 died.
A brief history of this case will be necessary for under standing the several companytentions urged before us.
1985/69 passed in Civil Appeal No.
This attempt gave rise to proceedings under s. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, however, were decided on April 14, 1954, in favour of Ramagya Prasad Gupta and the other partners.
94/56 and Civil Appeal No.
This re allocation of shares became the occasion for execution of a second partnership deed on August 31, 1950 which was also registered under the Indian Registration Act Ext.
This suit was transferred to the Court where the other two title suits were being tried.
68/54 filed by Parasnath Prasad for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, Kuldip.
1 and while he admits his signature thereon, he denies that he companysented to these proceedings.
They were also disposed of by a companymon judgment dated February 10, 1959 passed by the 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, Chhapra.
25,625/ and Nandkishore Prasad Rs.
94 of 1956 filed by the first respondent Murli Prasad.
1,02,500/ Parasnath Prasad Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
94/56 by ,ranting a declaration to Murli Prasad as prayed for that he alone was entitled to the entire money deposited or to be deposited by the State of Bihar as price for the assets purchased by them.
160 of 1959 respectively.
1986/ 68 against the judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No.
2,04,000 was debited to him on account of cheque No.
94/56 and Civil Appeal No.
1, Parasnath.
160 161/59 in the High Court, preferred an appeal, namely, Civil Appeal No.
There was numberchange in the shares of the two remaining partners Parasnath Prasad and Gurbharan Shah who held one anna and two annas share respectively.
it appears that some time after this revised partnership was registered, the Electrical Inspector, Government of Bihar, addressed a letter to Murli Prasad in which he stated that the partnership was illegal.
and void as it companytravened the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and that, therefore, the Government did number recognise the partnership.
This suit was for a declaration that the partnership had been dissolved by service of numberice on the partners and for rendition of accounts by Ramagya Prasad Gupta principally and by other partners.
According , they were also parties in the.
It was also agreed that the licence will be obtained in the name of Murli Prasad alone, though each partner had to companytribute to the total.
68/54 and 94/56 and one of the respondents in the two appeals, namely, First Appeal Nos.
34463 drawn in favour of Babu Murli Prasad the number of which tallies with the number mentioned in the receipt Ext.
All the three suits were thereafter companysolidated and tried together.
R 1 was shown to respondent No.
purchase money in proportion of their respective shares in the partnership.
P. Singh and S. R. Tiwari, for Appellants in CA 1986/78 .
The Government ultimately cancelled the licence.
The High Court agreed that the appeals were barred by res judicate and dismissed them.
In his evidence Murli Prasad denies in examination in chief that there was a companypleted agreement before the auction sale between Ajodhya Prasad, Parasnath, Nandkishore Prasad and himself each representing their respective families to enter into a partnership and that he had number purchased at the auction on behalf of the partners or on behalf of any other person, but had purchased it at the auction for himself alone.
The partnership Act on May 13, 1953, Ext.
68/54.
1 also proposed to dispose of his one anna share, out of 4 annas share.
1710/67 against the judgment and decree of the High Court passed in First Appeal No.
1 in both the appeals .
This licence was subsequently assigned to the Cnhapra Electric Supply Co., Ltd. which, however, went into voluntary liquidation in 1944.
Supply Works.
It also appears that in 1950 a further sum of Rs.
4,10,000/ towards the purchase money paid to the liquidator Ajodhya Prasad Gupta Rs.
Thereafter it is alleged that Murli Prasad got Parasnath Prasad a partner and son in law of Murli Prasads brother to institute Title Suit No.
1 would have us believed that large sum towards profits were due from Ramagya Prasad who was Managing, the companycern.
2 in both the appeals .
In this suit Murli Prasad had averred that it was he and he alone who had,paid the entire auction money for the purchase of the undertaking on July 13, 1945 and thereafter he became the sole licensee in charge of the undertaking and that Ramagya Prasad Gupta was a mere employee and servant under him.
Narain, Jagdish.
1710 of 1967 and 1986 of 1968.
68/54 filed by Parasnath Prasad and No.
Before those four appeals came up for, hearing, Jagdish Narain one of the interveners defendants, namely, defendant No.
His legal representatives were number brought on record and companysequently these two appeals were said to have abated as a whole and were dismissed on that account.
This amount was debited to the Bank account of Ajodhya Prasad and credited to the Bank account of Murli Prasad, Exhibit M Ledger Account of M s Ajodhya Prasad Gupta Co. in the Central Bank, Chhapra, shows that on July 14, 1945 Rs.
P. Singh, for Respondent No.
namely, Ayodhya Prasad, Murli Prasad Respondent No.
It is also clear from the balance sheet which Murli Prasad admitted were being sent regularly to the partners and, the Government, that though the first.
C. Agarwala, R. K. Garg and V. J. Francis, for respondent No.
Thereafter the electrical undertaking was sold by the official liquidator on September 15,1944 to Murli Prasad as his was the highest bid of Rs.
Prasad, Gurbharan Shah and Nandkishore Prasad entered into an oral agreement of partnership to purchase the electrical undertaking in the name of Murli Prasad, the share of Ayodhya was 8 annas, that of Murli Prasad 4 annas, Parasnath Prasad had 2 annas and Gurbharan Shah and Nandkishore Prasad bad one anna each.
17 in, CA 1986/68 .
The four suits were tried together by the Civil Judge.
was granted to him in 1932.
One Mahendra Prasad obtained a licence for electrification of the Chhapra town which.
94 of 1956 on November 5, 1956, for a declaration that he being the sole licensee, was the exclusive owner of the undertaking, and as such be was the only person who Was entitled to receive the entire price paid or payable by the Government in respect of the assets of the Chhapra Electric.
The Court granted his prayer and the Receiver in due companyrse took over the electrical companycern from Murli Prasad and Ramagya Prasad.
Similarily.,
BLal, for Respondent No.
These proceedings, Ext.
154 /59 against the decree in his Title Suit No.
2,50,000/ was paid on July 13, 1945, the oral agreement entered into between the partners was incorporated into a partnership deed executed on July 10, 1945 and registered under the Indian Registration Act Exhibit G .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. These appeals are by certificate against the judgment of the Patna High Court which reversed the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court in Title Suit NO.
Each of the partners had paid the following sums in accordance with their respective shares and in this manner all of them companytributed Rs.
25,625/ .
It is alleged that all this was due to the manipulation of Murli Prasad who, taking advantage of the letter of the Electrical Inspector, tried to take forcible possession and wanted to dispossess the managing partner of the electrical undertaking.
2,05,000/ Murli Prasad Rs.
113/57.
Kartas of their respective joint, familities, had.
Murli Prasad thereafter filed a Title Suit No.
The licence was thereafter assigned to Janardhan Prasad varma after the death of his father Mahendra Prasad in 1936.
