It was held that when there is no written agreement, it is the conduct of the parties that determines the existence of partnership. The plaintiff’s contention in this case was that he entered into a partnership orally for taking building contracts and to share profits and losses in equal proportion. The defendant's contention was that no such oral agreement ever took place, and the plaintiff had agreed to finance him for a contract and there was only a relation of debtor and creditor between them. The court observed that the mere use of words “partner” or “partnership” in an agreement does not necessarily show that there is a partnership. Further, a creditor by advancing money and receiving share of profits does not become a partner.

However, in the present case, the witnesses corroborated the fact of the existence of a partnershipthe plaintiff used to participate in the construction work and he did act as an agent for another partner. Such partnership also admitted by the defendant, though he said that the plaintiff was engaged to look after the work in lieu of „a payment, held that there was a partnership between them.