Retired partner shall remain liable for any subsequent act done by the firm until public notice of his retirement is given.

AR. Lakshmanan, J.

The appellant/ plaintiff bank has filed O.S. No.713 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, against the respondents/ defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.88,005.24 together with interest at 15% perannum till date of payment and for costs.

2. The 1st defendant is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and defendants 2 to 5 are its partners and thus they are jointly and severally responsible to repay the amount borrowed by the 1 st defendant firm. On 24. 1975, the defendants borrowed a sum of Rupees six lakhs from the plaintiff-bank. The advance was made as a clean loan subject to the rules of business of the plaintiff and supported by a promissory note for rupees six lakhs and carrying interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum. A sum of Rs.88,005.24 was due and payable by the defendants at the end of March, 1979. The plaintiff issued a notice through its advocate on 20.9.1977. Defendant 2 and 3 have received the same. According to the plaintiff, it is entitled to recover interest subsequent to the plaint at the same rate as would be applicable under the loan rules.

3. The 2nd defendant alone filed a written statement. According to him, the suit is liable to be dismissed so far as himself and the 4th defendant are concerned. He would state that defendants 2 to 5 are not partners of the 1 st defendant firm and they are not jointly and severally responsible to repay the amount borrowed by the 1 st defendant. The alleged execution of the suit promissory note and the borrowing are specifically denied. The claim of interest at 21% is exorbitant and that it is against the Reserve Bank of India’s rate of interest. The fixed deposit receipts of Ramakrishna Kudil have been offered as security as seen from the copy of account and the loan advanced on the strength of the same. As such, the loan in question cannot be called a clean loan and hence the claim of interest and appropriation of amount calculating interest as if it was a clean loan is illegal and improper and is liable to be re-opened. Defendants 2, 4 and 5 have retired from partnership by a deed of release as early as 33. 1975 and this fact of their retirement from the partnership is very well known to the plaintiffs officers including the Chairman. It is only the said circumstance which prompted the bank not to issue notice to these defendants as partners and never any claim was made upon these defendants. The plaintiff is aware that defendants 2 and 4 ceased to be the partners of the 1st defendant firm. These defendants are, therefore, not liable to any extent. The claim of interest is usurious. The suit claim is barred by limitation. There was no acknowledgment of liability by these defendants as alleged.

4. On the above pleadings, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the defendants 2 to 5 are not liable jointly and severally with the 1st defendant?

3. Whether the interest charged is correct?

4. Whether the promissory note has been materially altered and thus is vitiated?

5. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?

6. Whether defendants 2 and 4 are unnecessary parties?

7. What is the amount payable to the plaintiff bank?

8. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

5. The trial court tried issue Nos..l, 2 and 4 to 7 together and held that defendants 2 and 4 are not liable for the suit claim even though they have signed the Current Account opening form Ex.A-4 dated 14. 1970, that the signing of Ex.A-4 will not prove that they are also liable for the suit claim and since defendants 2 and 4 have already retired from the partnership business of the 1st defendant firm by executing a release deed Ex.B-1 and as Ex.A-1 promissory note was executed subsequent to Ex.B-1, defendants 2 and 4 are not liable for the suit claim. However, the lower court decreed the suit against