P. KODDANDA RAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment as two suits were tried together. A. S. No. 18 of 1979 arises out of judgment and decree in O. S. No. 277/72 and A. S. No. 1220/1980 arises out of judgment and decree in O. S. No. 278/72. The Defendants are the same in both the suits but the Plaintiffs are different. In O. S. No. 277/72 one Dharanipragada Ramalinga murthy, being minor represented by his brother, is the plaintiff. (Now he is declared as major ). In the other suit, O. S. No. 278/72 D. Venkata rao and Brothers, a Hindu Joint Family Firm, is the plaintiff.

( 2 ) IN the Trial Court, common evidence was adduced, and the Trial Court decreed the suit O. S. No. 277 of 1972 and dismissed O. S. No. 278/ 1972. Defendants 3 and 4 are the Appellates in A S. No. 18/1979 against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 277/1972. The Plaintiff is the Appellant in AS. No. 1220/1980 agaist the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 278/1972. A. S. No. 18/1979 :

( 3 ) 1 shall take up A. S. No. 18/1979 first. The suit was laid on the foot of an agreement Ex. A-1 in the case whereunder the Plaintiff, a minor who was admitted as a Partner of the First Defendant Firm, was allowed to retire and in lieu thereof a sum of Rs. 16,616 was agreed to be paid by the managing Partner and 2nd Defendant, with a guarantor to the said agreement, who is the 5th Defendant. The suit is laid to enforce the said Agreement, and to recover the suit amount as recited in the said agreement.

( 4 ) THE Agreement was attacked by the Defendants, principally, by the 2nd Defendant, stating that it is vitiated by threat and coercion and the same is not enforceable. Defendants 3 and 4 contended that the said Agreement is not binding on them as they are not parties to the same.

( 5 ) THE Trial Court framed issues, as found in paragraph 7 of its judgment, and held that the agreement Ex. A-l Dated 27-7-1971 is not vitiated by threat or coercion, and it is supported by consideration, and the suit is maintainable and the agreement is enforeceable against Defendants 3 and 4 also, and consequently decreed the suit with interest at 12% per annum from 1-1-1972.

( 6 ) SRI T. S. Haranath, Learned Counsel for the Appellants, raised two questions. (The suit for recovery of the amount, on the basis of Ex. A-1, is not maintainable so tor as the other partners who are not parties to this agreement and the agreement is outside the authority of the Managing partner. (2) The claim of interest at 12% per annum is opposed to 1 as there is no legal basis for the claim.

( 7 ) IT is seen that the agreement in question, is one relating to the retirement of partner. Hence the point for determination is, whether the agreement relating to the retirement of partner is within the authority of the managing partner so that the said contract binds the other partners. For this purpose, we may look to Secs. 19 and 22 of the Partnership Act 9 of 1932. "s. 19. Implied authority of partner as agent of the firm. (1) subject to the provisions of sections 22, the act of a partner which is done to carry on, in the usual way, business of the kind carried on by the firm, binds the firm. The authority of a partner to bind the firm conferred by this section as called his "implied authority". (2) In the absence of any usage or custom of trade to the contrary, the implied authority of a partner does not empower him to (a) submit a dispute relating to the business of the firm to arbitration, (b) open a banking account on behalf of the firm in his own name, (c) compromise or relinquish any claim or portion of the claim by the firm. (d) withdraw a suil of proceeding filed on behalf of the firm, (e) admit any liability in a suit or proceeding against the firm, (f) acquire immovable property on behalf of the firm. (g) transfer immovable property belonging to the firm, or (h) enter into partnership on behalf of the firm. ""sec. 22. Mode of Doing Act to Bind Firm : in order to bind a firm, an act or in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document