The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a suit to be maintainable under S.69(2) of the Partnership Act, the persons suing must be shown as partners in the Register of Firms at the time of institution of the suit.

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 957 of 1983, Munsiffs Court, Cherthala, is the revision petitioner. The suit was filed for recovery of money from the respondent-defendant. The plaintiff is a registered firm. The Managing Partner, Mr.Salim, filed the suit on behalf of the firm. The suit was for recovery ofthe balance amount of Rs.859.80 as on 8-3-1980. The defend am had obtained a loan of Rs.10,000/- on 30-3-1976, with an agreement to repay it with 18% interest. For the balance due as on 8-3-1980, the defendant agreed to pay 19% interest. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant gave two post-dated cheques on 28-4-1982. The cheques are dated 30-4-1982 and 16-5-1982. The cheques were dishonoured. The plaintiff initiated two criminal cases futilely. In spite of demand, the defendant did not pay the amount due. So, the suit was filed.

2. The defendant contested the suit. He pleaded that the suit is not maintainable. The loan from Bharath Trust, the firm, was admitted. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is not competent to represent the said firm. The balance, as on 8-3-1980, was denied. The amounts due as per the loan transaction were paid in full. The suit is barred by limitation. The defendant never agreed to pay 19% interest. No cheque was given on 28-4-1982. The cheques mentioned in the plaint were given as security on a different count. They are not supported by consideration. The plaintiff is not entitled to present those cheques to the bank. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff. The statement of accounts shown by the plaintiff is incorrect. The defendant is entitled to compensatory cost of Rs. 500/-.

3. As many as nine issues were raised by the trial court In the way the events have turned out, it is sufficient to concentrate on Issue Nos.1 and 8 for disposing of this revision. The arguments centred round only on the aspects covered by the said issues. The issues are as follows:

(a) is the plaintiff not competent to represent and sue for Bharath Trust? and

(b) Is the suit maintainable?

4. I heard counsel.

5. The Munsiff Court held that the suit is hit by S.69(2) of the Partnership Act and so, not maintainable. The appellate Court concurred with the said view. Counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. V.N. Swaminathan, very vehemently contended that the courts below were in error in holding that the suit is hit by S.69(2) of the Partnership Act. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, Mr. Brahmanandan, submitted that on the facts found by the courts below, the suit is plainly hit by S.69(2) of the Act. Subsections (1) and (2) of S.69 of the Partnership Act are as follows:

"(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 Registrar of Firms as a partner in the firm.

(2) No suits 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 firm".

6. The plaint proceeded on the basis that the claim is based on dishonoured cheques. The courts below, on an appraisal of the relevant averments in the plaint, held that the suit is for recovery of the balance amount due as per the accounts and agreements. The plaintiff did not rely upon the cheques for proving the plaint claim. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.859.80 was due as on 8-3-1980. The cheques were given on 28-4-1982 and 30-4-1982. The considerations, as stated in the cheques, are not the exact dues as on 30-4-1982 or 16-5-1982. The recital in the instrument was, admittedly, incorrect. Holding that in such circumstances, no presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act is available and the pla