The defendants 3, 5 and 6 who lost their defence in both the Courts below are the appellants 1 to 3 in this second appeal. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in the trial Court for recovery of money covered by Exs.A.1 to A.5 deposit receipts dated 11.06.1998 under which she made deposits of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.22,567/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively with the 1st defendant firm/2nd respondent on interest of 24% per annum with yearly rests. The defendants 2 to 6/appellants 1 to 3 and others have been partners. After death of the 2nd defendant, the defendants 7 to 9 were added as his legal representatives. After issuing legal notice Ex.A.6 dated 15.11.1999, the plaintiff filed the suit. Exs.A.7 and A.8 are postal acknowledgments of the defendants 1 and 3 dated 18.11.1999 and 19.11.1999 respectively. Ex.A.9 consists of returned registered notice covers of the defendants 2 and 4 to 6. None of the defendants gave any reply to Ex.A.6 notice. The defendants opposed the suit on various grounds. The defendants 3, 5 and 6 who are the appellants herein filed written statements in the trial Court contending that the 3rd defendant joined in the registered firm by name the 1st defendant on 16.10.1983 and retired from partnership on 31.03.1984 itself and that during the said period he was a minor represented by his father as guardian and that the 3rd defendant is no way concerned with the 1st defendant from 31.03.1984 onwards and that the 3rd defendant does not know business of the 1st defendant as he was dormant partner and that defendants 5 and 6 were dormant partners in the 1st defendant firm from 01.04.1990 to 03.03.1997 and that therefore they are not liable for the suit claim. After trial, the trial Court decreed the suit against all the defendants; and other defendants than the defendants 3, 5 and 6 did not file any appeal and the decree became final against other defendants. The defendants 3, 5 and 6 filed appeal before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal, driving the appellants to this second appeal before this Court. Both the Courts below rejected contention of the defendants 3, 5 and 6 mainly on Section 32(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (in short, the Act).

2. In this second appeal, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the Courts below erred in applying Section 32(3) of the Act to this case and should have upheld contention of the defendants 3, 5 and 6 relying upon proviso to Section 32(3) of the Act.

3. The only question which according to the appellants is the substantial question of law is whether Section 32(3) of the Act is applicable or proviso to Section 32(3) of the Act is applicable to proved facts in this case, or whether more of the above provisions is applicable; consequently whether the appellants are liable for the suit claim?

4. On the above point, both the counsel are heard, since this Court originally ordered notice to the 1st respondent/plaintiff before admission. According to the 1st respondent’s counsel, main Section 32(3) of the Act is applicable on the proved facts.

5. There is no dispute that the 1st defendant is a registered firm. It is stated to be in existence since 26.02.1968. The 3rd defendant examined himself as D.W.1. The 6th defendant examined himself as D.W.2. The 6th defendant and the 5th defendant are brothers. Ex.B.4 is certified copy of form registration certificate dated 26.02.1968. By then, none of the defendants 3, 5 and 6 was a partner. Ex.B.1 is Photostat copy of list of partners issued by Registrar of Firms in the relevant form. Ex.B.3 is income tax return in saral form together with Form No.16. From all this oral and documentary evidences, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the 3rd defendant as a minor joined in the firm on 16.10.1993 and retired from the partnership firm on 31.03.1984; and that the defendants 5 and 6 joined in the 1st defendant firm on 01.04.1990 and ceased o