Modi, J.—This is a revision by the plaintiff Kesrimal and another in a suit for money against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra dated 28th May, 1954, by which he upheld the dismissal of the suit by virtue of the provisions of sec. 69 of the Partnership Act.

2. The material facts leading upto this revision may shortly be stated as follows:—

3. The case of the plaintiffs Kesrimal and Pukhraj was that they were carrying on business in the name of Kesrimal Pukhraj and that they were partners of a firm, which was registered and that there were no other partners in the firm except these two. It was then alleged that there were money dealings between the plaintiffs firm and Pratapmal deceased, father of the defendants opposite parties, from Smt. 2001 Migsar vadi 4th to Smt. 2006 Kartik vadi 14 and that the said Pratapmal on the last mentioned day, after going through the accounts, executed a Khata in favour of the plaintiffs firm for a sum of Rs. 379/1/- and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The defendants opposite parties were called upon to pay off the debts of their deceased father, but without any result. Consequently, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 442/5/- including principal and interest on the 6th October, 1952 on the court of the Munsiff, Balotra. Defendant Dalichand allowed the suit to proceed ex parte against himself. The other two defendants Bapulal and Pukhraj were minors and filed a written statement through their court guardian in which they pleaded ignorance of the suit dealings as also of the plaintiffs firm having been registered. Both the courts below held that the document.(Ex. 1/4) alleged to have been executed by Pratapmal in favour of the plaintiffs firm was proved to have been executed by him, but they dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs firm was not registered and also that they had failed to show that they were entitled to sue the defendants on behalf of the firm Kesrimal Pukhraj as its partners. The plaintiffs have consequently come up in revision to this Court.

4. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the finding of the courts below that they had failed to show that their firm had been registered, is wrong and should be set aside. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on the following facts. It is pointed out that this firm Kesrimal Pukhraj was set up for the first time in Smt. 1995 and that Kesrimal and Pukhrajs father Premchand were its partners. It is further submitted that an application for the registration of the firm, as constituted above, was made to the Registrar of firms of the State of Jodhpur, as it then was, and that the latter granted a certificate, as per copy thereof Ex. 2. This certificate is dated the 6th December, 1943. It was further submitted that Premchand had died in Smt 2005 but Premchands son Pukhraj continued in the partnership and, therefore, the firm continued to exist and no fresh registration of the firm was necessary. The contention on the side of the respondent was and is that on the death of Premchand, the firm was dissolved and its fresh registration was necessary for the purposes of sec. 69 of the Partnership Act.

5. Having given my careful consideration to this aspect of the case, I am disposed to hold the view that there can be no serious obstacle in the way of the acceptance of the position so far advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is true that sec. 42 of the Partnership Act provides that a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner. It must, however, be remembered that this would be subject to contract between the partners as the opening words of sec. 42 go to show. Again, it is not necessary that a contract between the partners in this connection need be express, but may be implied and it may be possible to spell out such a contract from the subsequent conduct of the surviving partner and the heirs of the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document