A suit for recovery of debt by the sole surviving partner of a dissolved firm is maintainable under Section 69(3)(a) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, given on 18-7-1964 where by he allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts are that the plaintiffs petitioners before me filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 628-81 np. from the first defendant being the balance of principal and interest due on u promissory note, Ex. A-l, dated 14-10-1959, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 900 and another sum of Rs. 314 due as balance of the amount due on Chit No. 7 as per the account maintained in regular course of business by the plaintiffs. The second defendant was the partner of the firm. He was impleaded although it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the second defendant had given up his rights in the firm by virtue of a letter in favour of the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff is the firm, the second plaintiff being the sole surviving partner of the firm said to have been dissolved.

( 3 ) THE first defendant raised number of pleas. I am not, however, concerned with most of them. The only contention with which 1 am concerned is that the defendant raised an objection that the previous decision in O. S. No. 124 of 1961 operates as res judicata. He, therefore, demanded that the plaintiffs suit should be dismissed on that account.

( 4 ) THE trial Court rejecting all the contentions of the defendant except that he was an agriculturist and that he is entitled to get the benefits of Madras Act 4 of 1938, consequently reduced the interest and de creed the plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs. 363-25 np. , as against the first defendant and dismissed it in regard to the balance.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by that judgment the first defendant preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, who, by his judgment, us stated earlier, allowed the appeal solely on the ground that the previous decision in O. S. No. 124 of 196j operates as res judicata and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. He did not go into the other contentions raised by the defendant and discussed by the trial Court in its judgment. It is this view of the learned Subordinate judge that is now challenged by the plaintiffs in this revision petition.

( 6 ) THE only contention raised by Mr. T. Veerabhadrayya. the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that since the firm had been dissolved, for the recovery of property which includes the debt, a sole surviving partner of the dissolved firm can institute a suit although the firm was not registered or that the registration of a dissolved firm was found to be bad in law. His contention was that the previous decision in O. S No. 124 of 1961 does not bar the present suit.

( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the implications of this contention it is necessary to mention a few more tacts. The second plaintiff, styling himself as the proprietor of Sri Baba Commercial Syndicate Bhimavaram, instituted O. S. No. 144 of 1961 in me Court of the Principal District Munsiff, Shimavaram, for the recovery of the suit debt. The first defendant who was defendant there, raised all the pleas which he had raised in this suit. Although the District Munsif had negatived all the contentions of the defendant, yet dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was filed by a wrong plaintiff and that the firm which conducted its business in chit fund was not registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The firm Sri Baba Commercial Syndicate, Bhimavaram, consisted of two partners, the second plaintiff and the second defendant. It was an unregistered firm. When O. S. No. 124 of 1961 was instituted, the said unregistered firm was in existence. The suit was dismissed as stated above on 30-9-1961. Subsequent to the dismissal of the said suit on the grounds stated earlier, the second defendant gave up his share in the partnership on 15-2-1962, after the firm was dissolved on 31-12-1961. After the dissolution of the said firm, therefore, the second plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document