Registration of the firm is a condition precedent to the right to institute a suit, and subsequent registration cannot cure the defect of non-registration before the date of the suit.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Plaintiff is the Bank of Koothattukulam, a firm represented by its Managing Proprietor. The first defendant issued a cheque for Rs. 3,700/- on 8.10.1947 in favour of the second defendant to be drawn on the Moovattupuzha branch of the Palai Central Bank Limited on 14.10.1947. The second defendant endorsed the cheque on 8.10.1947 itself in favour of the plaintiff-bank and received Rs. 3,700/-. When the cheque was sent by the plaintiff-bank to the Moovattupuzha branch of the Palai Central Bank Limited it was returned dishonoured on the ground that the first defendant had countermanded payment. It is alleged that the first defendant countermanded payment after knowing that the plaintiff-bank had paid the amount to the second defendant. The suit is for the amount paid by the plaintiff-bank with interest at 12 per cent per annum.

2. Both the defendants contested the suit. The first defendant contended that he issued the cheque in favour of the second defendant on 4.10.1947 and not on 8.10.1947, that it was a post-dated cheque bearing the date 14.10.1947, that the second defendant made him understand that he had purchased a lorry for which he had to pay Rs. 3,000/-, that the second defendant wanted a cheque bearing date subsequent to 10.10.1947 since he undertook to deposit the amount in the bank in the name of the first defendant before that date, that the second defendant had agreed that if the amount was not deposited within that time the first defendant might countermand payment, that when he came to know that the second defendant did not deposit the amount as undertaken by him he asked the bank not to encash the cheque, that neither the second defendant nor the plaintiff-bank had any right to present the cheque on 8.10.1947, that he was not liable for the amount, and that no notice had been issued to him. The second defendant contended that the plaintiff-bank which was a firm was not registered under the Travancore Partnership Act, that the suit was therefore not maintainable, that when he endorsed the cheque in favour of the plaintiff-bank he was told that the money would be paid to him only on the maturity of the cheque, that he did not receive any amount from the plaintiff-bank, that no notice was issued to him, and that he was not liable for any

amount.

3. On the question whether the plaintiff-bank paid the sum of Rs. 3,700/- to the second defendant the court below found that the amount was paid. But the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff-bank was not registered under the Travancore Partnership Act and that the suit was therefore not maintainable under S.68(2) of that Act corresponding to S.69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. The parties were directed to suffer their respective costs.

4. The only question to be decided in this appeal is whether the court below was right in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-bank was not registered under the Partnership Act. It is not disputed that the plaintiff-bank is a firm coming within the purview of the Travancore Partnership Act, XII of 1115. S.68(2) of that Act provides:

"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 firm".

The present suit is admittedly one coming within the ambit of the sub-section. One of the points that arise for consideration in deciding whether the suit is hit by the sub-section is whether the plaintiff-bank was registered before the suit was instituted. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff-bank was one registered under the Partnership Act. But what really happened was that a statement as required by S.57(1) of the Travancore Partnership Act was sent to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies along with the prescribed fee on 8.11.1947. The records relating to this