Bawa vs Mohamado Casim – clr volume 1 page 053

In the case between Bawa (representing two partners) and Mohamado Casim (the alleged third partner), the court addressed whether a partnership involving capital exceeding Rs. 1,000 could be proved by oral (parole) evidence alone in the absence of a formal deed, as governed by Ordinance No. 7 of 1840, Section 21. The court held that parole evidence is inadmissible for establishing such an executory partnership contract but clarified the distinction for actions relating to settlement of accounts after dissolution. The judgments reviewed the procedural status, particularly the absence of a formal order giving rise to an appeal and relied on prior judicial interpretations, notably those found in Vanders-traaten’s Reports. The court’s decision reaffirmed the principle that the statutory restric