Law: Partnership Act (IX of 1932)

Section: Ss. 4 & 6

Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Ss. 4 & 6-Partnership Existence of-Depends upon facts and circumstances of each case --Parties to deed described as "partners"-Not by itself sufficient to constitute "partnership".   Raghunandan Nanu Kothare v. Hormasji Bezonji Bamji A I R 1927 Dom. 187 ; Ambalal Sarabhai In re : A I R 1924 Bom. 182 ; Majooji Moosaj v. Tayebali and others A I R 1933 Sind 210 ; Karnidan Sarda and another v. Sailaja Kanta Mitra and another A I R 1940 Pat. 683 and Chimanram Motilal and another v. Jayantilal Chhaganlal and another A I R 1939 Bom. 410 ref.    JUDGMENT   ABDUL RAHIM KHARAL, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1958 by the District Judge (Mr. Feroz Nana Ghulamali) Karachi passing a decree in the sum of Rs. 16,010 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was for dissolution of partnership entered into between the parties under deed Exh. 6 and for the asserted sum of Rs. 16,010. The defence set rip by the appellants was that there was no partnership between the parties and that in fact Exh. 6 was a fake document, that in fact the defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 20,000 and that to hide the usurious nature of the rate of Interest 48%, a guaranteed profit of Rs. 800 per month was mentioned. The trial Court settled the following issues:-   "(1) Whether the plaintiff and defendant entered into a partnership ?   Whether the document dated 21-12-51 purporting to be a deed of partnership was fake, fictitious and cannot be treated or acted upon as partnership ?   Whether the advance of Rs. 20,000 was made by way of loan ?   Whether the buses built on Chassis Nos. 189684 and 189685 vested in thealleged partnership or was run by or on behalf of the same ?   Whether the defendant is entitled to protection under the Usurious LoansAct ?   Whether the defendant paid Rs. 18,950 towards return of principal sum advanced by the plaintiff ?   What amount, if any, is due to the plaintiff ?   General."   We have to consider in this appeal whether Exh. 6 is in fact a deed of partnership and whether the parties had become partners…