The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of leave of the court for legal proceedings against a receiver or the property in his hands, as well as the joint and several liability of partners under the Partnership Act, 1932 and the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal, by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1980 passed in O. S No. 261 /77 on the file of the VII additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissing their suit, for recovery of money, as not maintainable. Defendants-1 to 4 in the suit are respondents-1 to 4, respectively, in this appeal. The parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their array in the trial-court.

( 2 ) HORACE William Davis, the first plaintiff, is a retired Colonel in the Indian army. The second-plaintiff is his wife. "international Investments and Finance corporation", the first-defendant, is a registered Firm of Partners and defendants-2 to 4 are the Partners. In response to a publication inviting deposits 'from the public issued by the said Firm, the plaintiffs, on 27-12-1972, made a joint deposit with the first- defendant, of Rs. 15,000/ -. The deposit, evidenced by the Fixed Deposit Receipt ex. P 2, was for 36 months and carried interest at 15% per annum. The interest was paid only upto 26-1-1975. The deposit matured for repayment on 27-12-1975. The first defendant Firm not having repaid the deposit, on maturity, plaintiffs, on 18-4-1977, instituted the present suit for the recovery of the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,062-50 representing interest at 15% per annum from 27-1-1975 till suit; in all rs. 20,062-50.

( 3 ) THE second-defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement. The defences urged were, first, that in o. S No. 58/75 on the file of the same court which was a proceeding instituted for the dissolution of the first-defendant firm, the Official-Receiver of Bangalore district had been appointed as receiver in respect of the assets and effects of the firm and that, therefore, no proceedings could be taken against partners individually in view of that suit for dissolution of the Firm ; and, secondly, that defendants-2 and 3 had retired from the Firm on 7-5-1974 and that as the retirement was anterior to the date of maturity of the deposit, they were not liable. Defendants-3 and 4, apparently, did not file any written statement of their own.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings, the court-below settled the following issues:" (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have kept Rs. 15,000/- in fixed Deposit for 36 months interest at the rate of 15% p. a. by agreement on 27-12-1972 as alleged? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No. 1 firm, had neither, repaid the principal amount after maturity nor the agreed interest from 27-12-1975 (26-1-1975) as alleged? (3) Whether defendant No. 2 proves that he retired as a partner on 7-5-1974 and is absolved of all the liabilities of the first defendant firm as alleged? (4) Whether defendant No. 2 proves that O. S. 58/75 is pending for the dissolution of the defendant No. 1 firm and that the management is with the Official Receiver and therefore, the suit against partners individually not maintainable as alleged? (5) What is due to the plaintiffs if any and from whom ? (6) What decree or order ?"on the side of the plaintiffs, the first-plaintiff tendered evidence as PW- 1. On the side of the defendants, none was examined. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the court-below held and answered the first and the second issues in favour of the plaintiffs. On issue No. 3, the court-below held that though it was shown that on 7-5-1974 defen- dants-2 and 3 had retired from the Firm, that circumstance did not affect or absolve their liability to the plaintiffs as the liability under fixed-deposit arose on 27-12-1972 at a time when they were, admittedly, partners of the Firm. On issue No. 5, the court-below held. that the amount as claimed in the suit was true and correct. However, on issue No. 4 which reffected the effect of the pendency of O. S. No. 58/75 for dissolution of the partnership and the appointment of a receiver on the present suit, the court-below was persuaded to the view that the present suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document