S. S. M. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE substantial question of law that arises in this Second Appeal is whether sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for, short the Act) requires that the partner of the firm, who files the Suit on behalf of the firm, should be shown as partner in the Register of Firms.

( 2 ) APPELLANT is the plaintiff in C. S. No. 559 of 1978 on the file of the Principal district Munsif, Anantapur. It is a registered firm represented by its Managing partner Thippaiah. The suitwas laid for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,300/- on the foot of a promissory note, Ex. A-l) said to have been executed by the first defendant in the suit on obtaining a loan of Rs. 4,000/ -. The plaintiff further stated that on 28-9-1973 a sum of Rs. 10/- was paid under Ex. A-2, The defendants denied the execution of the promissory note and contended that the suit was barred by limitation. They also contended that the person who purports to be the Managing Partner, was not a partner of the firm as on the date of the suit the firm stood dissolved. The trial Court after framing necessary issues decreed the suit On appeal by the first defendant, the learned District judge, Anantap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document