THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 3078 of 1990 JUDGMENT: The defendants 2 to 5 in O.S.No.116 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole are the appellants herein. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,418/-. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Thummati Rangaiah was the Managing Director of the 1st defendant company and the defendants 2 to 6 are the partners and directors. On 15.05.1977 a sum of Rs.25,000/- was borrowed and a promissory note was executed and when a suit was filed based on that promissory note, said Rangaiah approached for settlement and accordingly, executed a promissory note on 16.07.1980 agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 18% on a sum of Rs.39,250/- and without making any payments he died. The wife of Rangaiah is managing the 1st defendant company and defendants 2 to 6 are the family members and sharers of all the assets of the company of Rangaiah came into possession of the defendants and, therefore, the defendants are also liable to pay the amount. The appellants herein filed a written statement contending that there was already a partition between Rangaiah and his sons and a partition deed was executed. They are not the members of the company and, therefore, there is no liability. The joint family properties cannot be proceeded against and, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for a decree against the defendants personally from their properties is not sustainable. The lower Court after framing the necessary issues and after considering the evidence of P.W.1 alone, who is the plaintiff, and considering Ex.A-1 and as there is no evidence on behalf of the defendants, decreed the suit as prayed for. The defendants 2 to 5, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 30.06.1989, filed the present appeal. Pending disposal of the appeal, A.S.M.P.No.16129 of 1990 was filed to receive the settlement deed and also the certified copy of the partition deed and articles of association of the 1st defendant. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the defendants are personally liable to pay the amount? 2) Whether there are sufficient grounds to receive the additional evidence? 3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT NOS.1 to 3: There is no dispute about the fact that the suit was filed against a private limited company, for which Rangaiah was the Managing Director and it was incorporated under the Companies Act. As can be seen from the additional evidence filed, the sharers of the company are Rangaiah, his wife Thummati Paripurna Govindamma and Nalluri Ranga Rao. The appellants herein are not at all shown as the directors of the company or shareholders. The lower Court could not decide on this aspect, as the defendants have not filed the documents. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when the appellants are found to be not directors of the company, there cannot be any personal liability against them. The fact that there was a partition between the family members is also proved by the partition deed dated 22.03.1970, which is also filed as additional evidence. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, Rangaiah is a separate member of the family. But the fact that Rangaiah has got some assets and they were succeeded to by the defendants is not in dispute. But, however, as can be seen from the judgment of the lower Court, decree passed against all the defendants as if they are the directors of the company and liable for the debt. In view of the additional evidence, which is necessary and which could not be filed in the lower Court for the reason that a connected suit was filed on the same contentions in O.S.No.105 of 1983, which was dismissed on 03.04.1989 against these appellants. Accepting the contentions, I feel that two documents can be received as additional evidence and C.M.P.No.16129 of 1990 is partly allowed and the partition deed is marked as Ex.B-1 and the memorandum of Articles of Association of the 1st defendant company is marked as Ex.B-2. For the above reasons, it has to be held that the appellants are only liable for the assets of the company, if any, in their hands and also the estate of Rangaiah, which was in their hands and thereby there shall be no personal decree or their properties, which are said to have been divided between the parties under Ex.B-2. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 20-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 3078 of 1990 DATE: 20-09-2011 MR