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, Anantapur allowed the appeal (A. S. No, 102 of 1980), on 5-3-1982, holding that the person who purports to be the Managing Partner was not a partner of the firm when the suit was filed. Outof this decree and judgment, the present Second Appeal arises.

( 3 ) SRI Prasad, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that Section 69 (2) of the Act does not require that a person filing the suit on behalf of the firm must show that his name is recorded as partner in the Register of Firms; it is enough for him by whatever evidence, oral or documentary, to show that he was in fact a partner on the date of institution of the suit.

( 4 ) SRI Sadasiva Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand contends that mere oral evidence that the person was a partner of the firm on the date of the suit is not enough; he must also show that his name is so recorded in the Register of Firms.

( 5 ) TO appreciate these rival contentions, it is necessary to read Section 69 (2) of the Act. Section 69 deals with the effect of non-registration of firms. Sub-section (2), with which we are concerned here provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless; (i) the firm is registered and (ii) the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. It is therefore, incumbent to show that the firm which filed the suit was a registered firm arid that the person who is suing on behalf of the firm is shown as a partner in the firm or has been so shown in the Register ofr Firms. I am supported, in my view, by the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Ramachandraiah Gupta vs. Ravula Venkat Reddy. In the aforesaid case it was urged before the Court that it was open to a person to establish that he was a partner even if he had not been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner. This contention was rejected. Chinnappa Reddy, J. , (as he then was) held that the second condition requires that the names of the persons suing were shown at the time of the filing of the suit or had been previously shown in the Register of firms as partners of the firm. The learned Judge further observed that construction of Section 69 (2) as contended might well defeat the object of the provision which was avowedly to be provided the pressure which was to be brought to bear on partners to have the firm and themselves registered.

( 6 ) A Division Bench of this Court in V. Anjaneya vs. M/s. M. G. Brothers referred to the above proposition of tew laid down by the learned single Judge in Ramachandraiah Gupta s case as correct.

( 7 ) THE same view was taken by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in shankar Housing Corporation vs. Mohan Devi.

( 8

Click Here to Read the rest of this document