What was the key legal question in Devilal v. Himat Ram?

Whether, after dissolution and the death of one partner, the surviving defendants still effectively represented the deceased partner’s interest in the suit.

What rule did the court apply?

Section 44 of the Indian Contract Act: release or death of one joint promisor does not discharge the others from liability.

Did the case abate due to the death of Himmat Ram?

No. The suit did not abate as a whole. The surviving partners continued to represent the partnership’s liability.

Why is this case useful for exams?

It shows that joint liability of partners survives the death of one partner, and suits can proceed against the others.

What practical lesson does the case teach?

When liability is joint, plaintiffs can pursue surviving promisors; technical abatement should not defeat substantive rights.

devilal-v-himat-ram-1973-raj-39

Devilal v. Himat Ram (AIR 1973 Raj 39)

Joint promisors & partnership liability under Section 44, Indian Contract Act — a clean, classroom-style explainer.

Rajasthan High Court 1973 Division/Single (as applicable) AIR 1973 Raj 39 Contract (Joint Promisors) ~6 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi · India · Published: 26 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

This case shows how joint promisors are treated when one partner dies. The court said: the case does not fail just because a partner died. The surviving partners still represent the liability of the partnership. Section 44 of the Indian Contract Act supports this view.

```

Issues

Does the suit abate as a whole after the death of one partner?
Do the surviving defendants effectively represent the deceased partner’s interest?

Rules

Section 44, ICA

Release or death of one joint promisor does not discharge the others. Liability continues against the rest.

Partnership Setting

Where partners made a joint promise, the survivors remain answerable for partnership debts unless law says otherwise.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Devilal v. Himat Ram

Construction Contract: Defendants, as partners, took a contract to build the Udaipur Town Hall (approved in names of Himmat Ram & Narottam Swaroop).

Subcontract: Defendant Kanaiyalal negotiated a subcontract with plaintiff Devilal as agent for the partners.

Claim: Devilal asked for ₹6,500 as dues.

Trial Court: Decree for ₹5,375.99 against all defendants, jointly and severally.

First Appeal: Amount reduced to ₹1,673.09; interest @ 6% p.a. during the suit.

Second Appeal: Filed by Devilal. During proceedings, Himmat Ram died. Others were surviving partners.

Relief Sought: Money decree against all defendants, jointly and severally, for partnership dues.

Arguments

Appellant (Devilal)

Partners made a joint promise; dues remain unpaid.
Death of one partner should not defeat recovery.
Surviving partners represent the partnership; suit must continue.

Respondents (Surviving Partners)

Urged abatement due to death of Himmat Ram.
Questioned agency and extent of joint liability.

Judgment

Held: Appeal allowed. The suit did not abate as a whole on the death of Himmat Ram. The surviving partners could be proceeded against for the partnership liability.

Reason: Under Section 44, ICA, release or death of one joint promisor does not discharge others.

Ratio Decidendi

Joint promises create continuing liability against surviving promisors. Technical abatement cannot wipe out a valid claim where the partnership’s promise remains due.

Why It Matters

Protects creditors when one partner dies after dissolution.
Confirms strong rights against surviving joint promisors.
Guides contractors and sub-contractors in partnership projects.

Key Takeaways

Death of one promisor ≠ discharge of others (Sec. 44 ICA).
Suit does not abate as a whole; proceed against survivors.
Agency in partnerships can bind all partners to subcontracts.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “One gone, promise on.”

Joint promise binds the team.
Gone partner doesn’t end liability.
On with suit against survivors.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Does death of a partner cause abatement and release others?

Rule

Sec. 44 ICA: release or death of one joint promisor does not discharge the rest.

Application

Partnership made a joint promise; surviving partners remained liable despite Himmat Ram’s death.

Conclusion

Suit continued; appeal allowed; liability of survivors stands.

Glossary

Joint Promisors: Two or more persons who make one promise together; each remains liable.
Abatement: Ending a case or appeal due to a procedural reason like death; here, not as a whole.
Agency in Partnership: An act by one partner can bind the others when done for firm business.

FAQs

The suit did not abate as a whole; surviving partners remained liable for the partnership’s joint promise.

Section 44 of the Indian Contract Act dealing with joint promisors.

Because liability was joint; the death of one promisor did not end the others’ responsibility.

Trial court decreed a higher amount; first appeal reduced it; in second appeal, the court confirmed the suit could proceed against survivors.

Quote Sec. 44 ICA and say: “Death or release of one joint promisor does not discharge others; suit continues against survivors.”

Quick Nav

Case Meta

CASE_TITLE: Devilal v. Himat Ram
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: joint promisors, Section 44 ICA, partnership liability
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: abatement, representation of deceased partner, construction contract
PUBLISH_DATE: 26-10-2025
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Slug: devilal-v-himat-ram-1973-raj-39

Useful Links

Contact