The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the Indian Partnership Act and the significance of the mode of proof of partnership registration in determining the maintainability of the suit.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an action for recovery of money on foot of hair purchase agreement entered into by the defendants who are father and son. The plaintiff is a firm styled Sri Venkateswara Finance Corporation. and is represented by three persons described as managing partner, The case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant is the hirer and his son, the 2nd defendant is the guarantor, who are liable to make payments in 12 monthly installments from 29-1-1963 and that there was default on the pat of the defendant who paid only two paltry summons of Rupees 500/- and Rs. 318. 00 and that the plaintiff had to pay insurance premium to the tune of Rs. 577/50 Ps. because of the omission o the defendants. Reimbursement is sought in respect of the insurance premium. the defendants failed to satisfy the liability on demand and hence the suit was filed.

( 2 ) THE defendants challenged the maintain ability of the suit on the ground that the partnership was not registered under the Indian Partnership Ac, and that the names of the partners who are suing were not entered as such in the certificate of registration. They dent that the truncation is one of hire purchase. According to them, the transaction was only one of loan. They pleaded that the motor vehicles belonged to them and that there could be no question of any hire purchase agreement. They stated that there was no valid transfer f ownership of the buses to the plaintiff firm and the agreement was illegal. they claimed to have made a payment of claimed to have made a payment of Rs 2,000/- for which no credit was given.

( 3 ) THE trial court overruled the defenses and granted a decree to the plaintiff and this appeal is preferred by the defendants.

( 4 ) THE first contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is based on section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act. It was pleaded by the defendants that the registration of the firm does not show that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are partners and it is not also shown whether there were any other partners. The registration of the firm is clearly proved by Ex. A-1. it is described as a certified copy of acknowledgment of the registration of the firm. It is not the registration certificate but it is an official intimation that Sri Venkateswara Finance Corporation was registered as a firm on an application made to the Registrar of firms.

( 5 ) THERE was a categorical plea that the names of the persons suing as partners were not found in the certificate of registration. But, neither party to the suit made by any attempt to prove the contendants that the requirements of S. 69 (2) were not satisfied and the suit was not competent. The terms in which the issue was cast and the range of the controversy in the lower Court suggest that the defendants were not keen om pressing this aspect at the trial even if they did not formally abandon on the plea. It is open to grave doubt whether it is permissible for the defendants to agitate the question in this appeal having regard to their omission to ask for the settlement of the issue in express terms. Had the defendants urged that the issue should have been so worded as to make the entry of the names of the partners in the certificate of registration a provable fact, the position would have been different. Then the plaintiff firm would have been duly alerted than the proof of the contents of the registration certificate was a live or debated issue. In the face of an acquiescence on the part of the defendants in the limited scope of issue No. 2 it is not open to them to canvas the question in this appeal on the ground that the plaintiff- firm failed be prove the fast in controversy.

( 6 ) IT is however submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that section 69 (2)makes it incumbent on the plaintiff to satisfy the two conditions mentioned therein, and that the suit must be held to be incompetent if the mandatory provisions are not roved to have been satisfie