IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 AS.No. 559 of 1999(D) --------------------- OS.781/1993 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/8TH DEFENDANT: -------------------------------- ROSILY GEORGE, W/O.PALATHINGAL GEORGE, KATTOOR DESOM, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 7 AND 9: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AUGUSTINE, S/O.ARIKKATT INASU, KAROOR DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDPAURAM TALUK. 2. SHERLY DIKOSTTA, W/O.THOPPIL JOSEPH DIKOSTTA, KADUKUTTY DESOM, VADAKKUMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. MARY ANTO, W/O.PALLYSERY VAREED ANTONY, CHALAKKUDY DESOM AND VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. JACOB, S/O.KANNAKKADAN OUSEPH, VELLANCHIRA DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 5. THOMAS, S/O.CHOORAKKAL KUNJUVAREED, VALUKKUMMURI DESOM, KORATTY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 6. USHAN DAVIS, W/O.CHOORAKKAL DAVIS, VALUKKUMMURI DESOM, KORATTY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 7. ELSY, W/O.CHEERATHI GEORGE, VALUKKUMMURI DESOM, MURINGOOR THEKKEMMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. AS.No. 559 of 1999(D) *8. PAULY, S/O.CHEERATHI VARKEY, VALUKKUMMURI DESOM, KORATTY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. *9. THRESSIAMMA, W/O.LATE CHERIYA KIZHAKKODAN HOUSE, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. * R8 & R9 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 14.1.2010 IN I.A.NO.153 OF 2010. ADV. MR.JOMMY THARIAN FOR R1 MR.T.V.GEORGE FOR R5 MR.SHAJU FOR R5 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS.No. 559 of 1999(D) ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.4457/1999 IN A.S.NO.559/1999 DISMISSED. 3.6.2010 SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. 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/-