IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 559 of 1999(D)
1. ROSILY GEORGE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AUGUSTIN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.JOMMY THARIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :03/06/2010
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
------------------------
A.S.No.559 Of 1999
----------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
8th Defendant in O.S.No.781 of 1993 on the file of the
Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda is the appellant. The suit was
filed for contribution of the proportionate decree amount paid by
the plaintiff with interest. There are nine defendants in the suit.
The trial court decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realise a
sum of Rs.5,300/- each from the defendants with future interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.
Parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants
as arrayed in the suit.
2. Plaintiff, defendants 1 to 8 and husband of the 9th
defendant were partners of a business firm. One Prakash Finance
had instituted O.S.No.290 of 1985 and obtained a money decree
as against the firm and its partners. The properties of the
plaintiff herein, who was the third defendant in the suit, was
attached in that suit and brought up for court sale to enforce the
decree. To avert sale, plaintiff was constrained to pay a sum of
A.S.No.559 Of 1999
::2::
Rs.53,000/-. Plaintiff demanded the contribution of the share
from the partners who are the defendants herein as all partners
are equally liable for the debts and liabilities of the firm. The suit
was instituted for contribution of the proportionate decree
amount.
3. The appellant herein contended that she was never a
partner of the firm and hence not liable to contribute. According
to her, another woman of her identical name who is the wife of
one Joju was the partner of the firm, whereas her husband’s
name is George, a totally different woman and she maintained
the stand that she is not liable to pay any contribution. The trial
court noted that the appellant/8th defendant received summons in
O.S.No.290 of 1985 and the present suit is filed against the 8th
defendant is not as a partner of the firm who personally liable as
under Ext.A2 decree. The trial court rightly observed that the
question to be decided is as to whether 8th defendant is a partner
so long as Ext.A2 decree stands. It follows that the 8th defendant
is also liable to contribute the said amount.
A.S.No.559 Of 1999
::3::
4. The contentions raised by both sides are re-agitated
before this Court. This Court is of the view that the contentions
of the appellant are not sustainable in law. The grounds urged in
the appeal memorandum and the contentions raised at the time
of final hearing are considered in detail by this Court. This Court
is of the view that the appellant failed to substantiate her case,
nor made out sufficient grounds to interfere with the decree and
judgment passed by the trial court. I fully agree with the reasons
and conclusions arrived at by the trial court in passing a decree
as against the appellant as well.
In the result, appeal fails and accordingly dismissed with
costs.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
bkn/-