The common substantial question of law raised for a decision in these appeals is whether a fresh registration of the partnership firm is required consequent to its reconstitution to maintain a suit in view of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act (for short, "the Act") and whether non-intimation of reconstitution of the partnership firm to the Registrar of Firms would affect maintainability of the suit.

2. S.A.Nos.406 of 1995 and 432 of 1995 arise from common judgment and decree of learned Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur reversing judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, North Paravur in O.S.No.294 of 1988. Appellant, a partnership firm filed O.S.No.294 of 1988 for a decree for realisation of the future instalments with interest allegedly payable on the basis of a chitty agreement. Learned Munsiff granted a decree in favour of the appellant. Respondent No.4/defendant No.4 challenged the judgment and decree in A.S.No.34 of 1992 while respondent Nos.1 to 3 challenged judgment and decree in A.S.No.40 of 1992. Learned Principal Sub Judge allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits. S.A.No.656 of 1995 arises from judgment and decree of the same appellate court in A.S.No.37 of 1992 reversing judgment and decree of the same trial court in O.S.No.364 of 1988. That also is a suit for realisation of the money preferred by the same appellant against the respondents on the strength of a chitty agreement. The first appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

3. Appellant, it is averred in the plaint is a partnership firm registered under the Act with its head office at North Paravur and branch at Bangalore. It started the kuri from its branch at Bangalore in which respondent No.1 joined. Appellant alleged that respondent No.1 prized the kuri in O.S.No.294 of 1988 on 6.9.1983, received Rs.10,000/-and issued a receipt for the same. In O.S.No.364 of 1988, respondent No.1 prized the kuri on 6.5.1983, received Rs.17,850/-and issued a receipt. It is the further case of appellant that respondent Nos.2 to 4 in both the cases are sureties of respondent No.1 in both the cases and all of them jointly executed chitty agreement undertaking to pay the future instalments without default. According to the appellant, in O.S.No.294 of 1988 respondents defaulted payment of amount from the 26th instalment onwards, respondent No.4 had pledged chitty No.183 as security, amount payable under the chitty was adjusted by the appellant and the balance sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum is due. Allegation in O.S.No.364 of 1988 is that respondents defaulted payment of future instalments and that a sum of Rs.13.059/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum of Rs.9,600/- is due from the respondents.

4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.294 of 1988 contended that the partnership is not registered, the person who has signed the plaint is not competent to do so and that no amount is due. Bar of limitation is also pleaded in defence. Respondent No.4 contended that the suit is in violation of Section 69 (2) of the Act and that he is entitled to get Rs.9,600/- from the appellant as per chitty No.183. He has not authorised appellant to adjust that amount in the amount payable by respondent No.1. He also contended that the person who has signed the agreement was not competent to do so. Similar contentions were raised by the respondents in O.S.No.364 of 1988 also. Learned Munsiff found on evidence that the partnership firm is registered and hence the bar under Section 69(2) of the Act would not apply though, in the meantime there was a reconstitution of the partnership firm. According to the learned Munsiff, failure of partners to intimate reconstitution of the partnership firm to the Registrar may visit them with penal consequences if any but, that does not affect the maintainability of the suit. First appellate court was of the view that partnership was formed for a period of five years, it was not registe