Law: Partnership Act, 1932

Section: S. 8

(a) Partnership Act (IX of 1932),   S. 8-Two persons advancing loan to M without interest thinking that they would make profit out of supply of paddy by M-Not by itself sufficient to constitute such persons into a firm.   (b) Partnership Act (IX of 1932),   S. 69-Loan advanced by partners in their own names-Suit brought by partners in such names, not to be thrown out merely on allegation that ultimate benefit was to go to partnership business-[Goverdhandass Takersey v. M. Abdul Rahman and another A I R 1942 Mad. 634 ref.]   (c) Partnership-   Mixed question of law and fact-Not allowed to be raised for first time in appeal.   (d) Sind Rural Credit and Land Transfer Act, 1947,   S. 8---Registered mortgage-deed hit by S.8-Not a void document or inadmissible in evidence-Can be used for collateral purpose of invoking personal covenant to obtain simple money decree for sum advanced.   (e) Limitation Act (IX of 1908),   Art. 116---Registered mortgage-deed---Suit for simple money decree on basis of original consideration-Art. 116 applicable-[A I R 1940 P C 240 ref.]       JUDGMENT   WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.---This is a first appeal against the judgment of Mr. B. G. Kazi, the then First Class Sub-Judge, Larkana, dated 11th October 1956 in First Class Suit No. 19 of 1954.   The appellants brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,275 on the basis of a mortgage-deed (Exh. 66) dated 21st November 1949 and in the alternative claimed a simple money decree against the respondents on the basis of a personal covenant contained in it. They alleged that the respondents borrowed from them a sum of Rs. 10,000 on the security of about 51 acres, 37 ghuntas of agricultural land, situated in Deh Bugti Balochan and Deh Wah Nabibux, Taluka Larkana, payable within ten months. Out of this amount the respondents paid Rs. 5,000 and failed to pay the balance of the amount of Rs. 5,000. They claimed $s. 1,275 as damages for loss of interest on loan at 6% per annum from 11th September 1950 to 23rd November 1954.   Respondent Mazharali resisted the suit on several grounds. He alleged that the amount of Rs. 10,000 was in fact a…