1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2005 passed in O.S.No.2 of 1999 by the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

2. For the sake of convenience, as this is a first appeal, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff is a registered firm, which carries on business in prawn culture in Visakhapatnam District. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant/insurance company for insuring their crop of prawn in 10 tanks for a sum of Rs.20,86,000/-. During the course of their business, the prawn in all the tanks got affected by disease and the entire crop died. The loss according to the plaintiff was to a tune of Rs.15,53,249.94 ps. The claim was submitted by the plaintiff but the same was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 14.11.1996. As the claim was repudiated, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice and filed the present suit claiming the said sum with interest. The defendants denied the entire claim including interest and stated that the plaintiff did not inform them of the loss within the time stipulated and also that there was non-disclosure of material facts etc.

4. An additional written statement was also filed wherein it was pleaded that the disputed claim should have been made the subject matter of the suit within 12 calendar months from the date of disclaimer. As the same was not done, the claim is not maintainable and is deemed to be abandoned.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Court framed the following four issues:

(a) whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount.

(b) whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim interest.

(c) to what relief.

(d) whether the claim is treated as abandoned as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

6. For the plaintiffs, three witnesses were examined and for the defendant one witness was examined. Exs.A.1 to A.19 were marked for the plaintiff, while Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked for the defendant.

7. After a full trial, the Court granted a decree for Rs.6,62,989.34ps. along with interest at 18% p.a. from the cause of action till the date of decree and further interest at 11% p.a. till realisation. Proportionate costs were also awarded. Questioning the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

8. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.V.Gangadhar, learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The two essential questions that were argued during the course of hearing were (a) about the registration of the partnership firm during the pendency of the suit and the bar under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short the Act); (b) whether the suit which is filed one day after the stipulated period is a claim abandoned under clause 15.

Issue (a): Section 69 of the Act is to the following effect:

69. Effect of non-registration:

(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm:

(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of firms as partners in the firms.

10. The facts that are undisputed are that the suit was filed on 14.11.1997, whereas the registration of the firm as per Exs.A.1 and A.18 was on 15.07.1998. Admittedly, the registration of the firm was after the suit was instituted. The plaint that was filed was returned with an objection about the lack of registration on 19.11.1997. It appears that after the registration, the objection was complied with and th