The retirement of a partner and the death of a partner do not automatically dissolve a partnership if there is a contract to the contrary, and a fresh partnership agreement that merely records changes in the constitution of the firm and provides for continuing the existing business does not dissolve the earlier partnership and form a new firm.

( 1 ) THE question in this Second Appeal is whether S. 69 ( Partnership Act, 1932 is a bar to the maintainability of the suit.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the said question of law may be stated: A firm known as "burugu Viswanadhan Bros. " consisting of five persons viz. , Burugu Mahadevudu, his brother Burugu veerayya, Parripati Venkatarathnam, and his two brother Subrahmanyam and Venkata Subba Rao as partners was formed in 1925. They executed a registered agreement on 8-6-1925 setting out the terms and conditions of the partnership. The Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force in 1932. The firm of Burugu Viswanadham Bros. consisting of those partnerss was registered under the Act in 1933. The names of the said five partners are shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm. Burugu Veerayya died on 17-7-39. Parripati Venkatarathnam and his two brothers became divided on 11-11-1939. Under the partition the interests of the three brothers in the assets and liabilities of the firm was taken over by Venkatarathnam and his brother Subramanyam. The third brother Venkata Subba Rao retired from the partnership. On 24-6-1940 Mahadevudu, Venkatarathnam and Subrahmanyam executed a fresh agreement of partnership Ex. B. 1. No notice either of the death of Veerayya or of the retirement of Venkatasubba ao had been given to the Registrar. The suit dealings with the defendant firm, the Bala Tripura Sundari Groundnut Mill and Company, Inkole, Bapatia, were commenced after 1940. The suit was filed by the plaintiff firm for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3951-4-0 from the defendants in respect of the dealings they had with them.

( 3 ) THE defendants, inter alia, contended taht time plaintff firm was different from that constituted in the in the year 1925, that it was not registered under the Parnership Act, and that S. 69 (2) of the Act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit.

( 4 ) THE first Court accepted the contention of the defendant and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court held that the plaintiff firm was the same firm as that formed in 1925, and registered under the Act, and that the suit was, thereforce, maintainable. The defendants have preferred the above Appeal.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants raised before me two points (i) by the death of Burugu Veerayya, one of the partners. on 17-7-1939, and by the retirmenet of Venkatasubba Rao, another partners from the partnership on 11-11-1939, the partnership formed in the year 1925 was automatically and legally dissolved and the plaintiff firm was a new firm constituted under Ex. B-1, and (ii) B-1 expressly disolved the old firm and constituted a new firm in its stead.

( 6 ) THE relevant provision of the Act is S. 69 (2 ). It reads:"no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shallbe instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firs is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Registrar of firms as partners of the firm. "under this Section, a firm is disabled to file a suit against a third party unless two conditions are complied with (i) the firm is registered and (ii) the persons suing are shown in the Register of firms as partners of the firm. The first question, therefore, is whether the suit frim "burugu Viswanadham Brothers" was registered under the Act.

( 7 ) THE firm was orignally constituted under the partnership agreement Ex. A-15 dated 8-6-1925. Admittedly, that was registered under the Partnership Act and the names of the five partners were shown in the Register. But, it is contended that the death of one of the partners and the retirement of another had the effect of dissolving that firm. This leads on to the consideration of the two subsidiary questions, viz. , (1) what is the effect of the retirement of a partner on the constitution of the firm, and (ii) what is the effect of the death of a parnter on its constitution?

( 8 ) BEFORE the enactm