Narayana Chetti Vs. Lakshmana Chetti

Narayana Chetti vs Lakshmana Chetti

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 21, 1897

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791166

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/791166
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Shephard, J.
Decided On: Oct 21, 1897
Subject: Contract

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

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. -

Key legal issue: Contract

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayana Chetti

Respondent

Lakshmana Chetti

Legal References

Cases Referred: Lukmidas Khimji v. Purshotam Haridas I.L.R.
Reported In: (1898)ILR21Mad256

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.

Full 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.

Same Parties Narayana Chetti vs Lakshmana Chetti Same Subject Contract Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Shephard, J.

Contract