Amendment to section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, by Maharashtra Act XXIX of 1984, which inserted sub-section (2-A), has no effect on the pending suits.

JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---The only question involved in the first appeal is whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit as not maintainable relying on section 69(2-A) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit on 14-1-1980 against the respondent, who is the original defendant in the suit, inter alia praying for dissolution of partnership firm and for rendition of accounts and other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that he is the owner of Shop No. 3 (O.S.), ground floor, Dongri Municipal Market, Dr. Maheshwari Road, Bombay, and he started carrying on business in bangles and cutlery in the said shop in the name and style of Kishore Novelty Store. Defendant, who is his brother-in-law requested him to induct him as partner in the said business and he promised to contribute Rs, 10,000/- towards partnership business as share capital in the proposed partnership business and accordingly partnership business was started between the plaintiff and the defendant from 10-8-1971. The partnership firm was not registered with the Registrar of firms under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. It is the plaintiff's case that on account of his ill-health he asked the defendant to attend the said business but the defendant wilfully and fraudulently committed breach of terms and conditions of the partnership agreement, did not accounts for the assets and income of the firm and systematically manipulated the accounts of the firm. The defendant also forged a deed of dissolution dated 14-4-1973 and filed suit based on that document which has been dismissed. The plaintiffs averred that the defendant frustrated in his attempt to oust the plaintiff from the partnership business has started harassing him and is not allowing the plaintiff to do the business. According to the plaintiff, in view of the wilful and persistent defaults of the terms and conditions of the partnership agreement committed by the defendant, continuance of the partnership business is impossible and that the business of the firm cannot be carried on in the present circumstances. He therefore prayed for dissolution of the firm, rendition of account and other ancillary reliefs.

3. The defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement on 20-8-1980 and set up defence that the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant was dissolved on 10-4-1973 after the plaintiff agreed to dissolve the partnership business and with full knowledge executed the deed of dissolution dated 10-4-1973 which was attested by his wife, whereby he gave up his right, title and interest of all nature in favour of the defendant. According to the defendant he also made certain payments towards plaintiff's debts which in all amount to Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. He denied the allegation of mismanagement or harassing the plaintiff. In sum and substance, the defendant pleaded in defence that the question of dissolution of partnership does not arise since it has already been dissolved on 14-4-1973 and there is no question of accounts now in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The Trial Court framed various issues on 9-8-1996 and though there was no defence set up by the defendant in the written statement about the maintainability of the suit for want of registration of firm, in view of the provisions of section 69(2-A) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which was obtaining on the date of framing of issues, the Trial Court framed Issue No. 1 to the effect whether the suit was maintainable for want of registration of firm amongst other issues. After recording the evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has been able to prove that deed of dissolution dated 14-4-1973 was forged document and it was not binding upon him. The Trial Court also held that the plaintiffs has been able to prove that the firm known as Novelty House was liable to be dissolved from the date of filing o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document