. that he had actually invested funds in accordance with the agreement and that he had participated in the operations of the company. With respect to the allegation that Respondent 2 denied that the transaction was a partnership. The partnership agreement is perverse and results from the non-consideration of the applicant`s admissions? (2) As regards whether the following courts erred in law. Command 1. Leave granted. 2. The complainant had brought an action against the respondents, which he described as an “action for termination of partnership business and accounts”. In what makes me feel good. . Business at Abdullapur on behalf of the company Hakam Mal Tani Mal and R.B Jodha Mal Kuthiala was on our part, which we concluded through an oral agreement to a separate partnership in the style of.
A.B Jodha Mal Kuthiaia, Abdullapur of April 1, 1939. .