A firm, by name, Srirama Warehouses, with Sri C.Manohar Reddy, P.Chengal Reddy and S.Narasimha Reddy, as partners, was constituted. It had transactions with one Sri E.Narasimha Reddy. Two loans are said to have been advanced to E.Narasimha Reddy for construction of go-down and purchase of tractor.

2. The firm, represented by its partner Sri S.Narasimha Reddy, filed O.S.No.778 of 1992 in the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against E.Narasimha Reddy, for recovery of Rs.1,21,368/-. The suit was transferred to the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and it was renumbered as O.S.No.295 of 2006. The sole defendant died and his legal representatives - respondents 2 to 4 herein were brought on record. During the pendency of that suit, the firm was dissolved and it is stated that the amount due from E.Narasimha Reddy under two transactions was assigned to the share of Sri C.Manohar Reddy (PW.1), one of the partners. He has independently filed O.S.No.101 of 2004 in the same Court against the legal representatives of E.Narasimha Reddy, for recovery of the amount said to have been advanced for construction of go-down. He has also prosecuted O.S.No.295 of 2006.

3. Respondents 2 to 4 herein contested the suits. Through its common judgment, dated 30.06.2009, the trial Court dismissed O.S.No.295 of 2006 and partly decreed O.S.No.101 of 2004. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.295 of 2006.

4. The appellant contends that the trial Court proceeded on a wrong notion that on dissolution of the firm, the suit cannot be continued, unless any procedural steps were taken. It is stated that the amount covered by the suit was assigned to the share of PW.1, and Section 47 of the Partnership Act (for short 'the Act') permits the proceedings to be continued, even after the firm is dissolved.

5. Smt. Manjiri S.Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that though the firm was dissolved during the pendency of the suit, Section 47 of the Act permits the partner, assigned with the rights, to continue the proceedings. She contends that a claim covered by a suit is a transaction, within the meaning of that term, used in Section 47 of the Act and that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained. She further submits that the suit claim was proved, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and the 'trial Court ought to have decreed the suit.

6. Sri P.Pandu Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that no steps were taken for amending the cause-title in the suit, after the firm was dissolved, and thereby, it became untenable even for a former partner of the firm, to continue the proceedings. He contends that DW.2, none other than the partner, who instituted the suit on behalf of the firm disowned the claim and the trial Court has arrived at just and proper conclusions.

7. The appellant, through a different partner, filed the suit for recovery of money against the deceased - 1st respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Another development was that the firm was dissolved. The respondents opposed the suit claim. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration, viz., "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim and interest as prayed for."

8. The suit was tried along with another suit being O.S.No.101 of 2004 and common evidence was recorded. On behalf of the appellant herein, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.23 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were filed. O.S.No.295 of 2006 was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration, viz.,

(a) "Whether it was competent for one of the partners of the firm to continue the suit fi