A suit on a single item, such as a promissory note, cannot proceed without settling the general accounts of the partnership firm.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant whose suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The plaintiffs, which is a registered firm, stopped its business in 1953. By a resolution dated 11th November, 1953, all the partners who filed the present suit were authorised to collect the debts due to the firm. The defendant who was also a partner owed a sum of Rs. 1,839-58 by 6th October, 1954, to the firm.

( 2 ) THE defendant executed a promissory note for the said amount and also renewed it on 13th October, 1956. It is on the last promissory note that the suit is instituted the principal contention of the defendant was that unless the partnership accounts are settled no single item can form the basis of a suit between the parties. Both the Courts below accepted this defence and dismissed the plaintiff s suit.

( 3 ) WHAT is contended by Mr. K. Suryanarayana, the learned Counsel for the appellant plaintiff is that the defendant was a party to the resolution passed by all the partners unanimously, that the debts due to the patnership firm should be collected and the debts which the partnership firm had to pay be discharged. In order to implement that resolution, they authorised the two partners to institute suits and take necessary action. It is in pursuance of that resolution that the present suit was filed. The defendant is not therefore entitled to go back upon the resolution and dispute the promissory note which he himself executed.

( 4 ) IT is true that the defendant is a party to the resolution, authorising two partners to institute suit on behalf of the firm and realise the debts due to it. It is also true that then defendant executed the promissory note for the amount due and also renewed it. The question, however, is whether the amount for which the promissory note was executed has any relation with the general accounts of the partnership firm.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the amount for which the promissory note was executed was withdrawn by the defendant as a partner from the firm with an understanding that if the firm runs in profits the same will be adjusted to his share and if it runs in losses, the defendant will be responsible for the loss in which this sum also would be included. What is therefore to be seen in such a case is whether the promissory note amount can be separated from the general accounts of the partnership and can form the basis of a suit after the firm is dissolved but not actually Wound up. It cannot be in doubt that the items for which the promissory note is executed is integrally connected with the general accounts of the partnership firm. Merely because a promissory note is executed, it does not alter the character of the amounts withdrawn by the defendants from the partnership firm. It is now fairly settled that a dissolved firm cannot institute a suit against a single partner for the realisation of the amount due. which cannot be decreed unless the entire accounts of the partnership firm are settled. If the single item can be disconnected with the general accounts, a suit can certainly lie. But if the nature of the tarnsaction is so intimately connected with the general accounts of the firm that it, cannot be separated, I do not think a suit on such single item can lie. This is what is decided in Gopala Chetti v. Vijaya Raghavachariar, (1922) 43 M. L J. 305 : L. R. 49 LA. 181 : i. L. R. 45 Mad. 378 (P. C. ). and Rajagopala Chettiar v. Palani Chettiar, (1954) 2 M. L. J. 639 ; I. L. R. (1954) Mad, 1160.

( 6 ) THE case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, viz. , Sunkara Ratha Doss. v. Epari Kopils, (1918) 49 I. C. 191, does not hold anything contr,a to that I stated above. That case can be distinguished on facts. I am therefore satisfied that the amount for which the promissory note is executed is inseparably connected with the general accounts of the firm and unless accounts are finally settled, no suit on a single item against a partner can lie. The resolution does not, in m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document