The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of registration of a partnership firm under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act and the principles of undue influence under Section 16 of The Indian Contract Act.

The unsuccessful defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1102 of 1989 has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1994 on the file of the I Asst. Judge (I/C III Asst. Judge), City Civil Court, Madras.

2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff, as put forth before the Court below, is, as under:

The plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on business as Carriers, fleet owners and transport contractors. The defendant approached the plaintiff from Faridabad to its factory at Madras. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to accept the consignment and deliver it to the defendants factory at Madras. The consignment was entrusted to them at Faridabad by M/s. Ammettep Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., to deliver it to the defendant at Madras vide L.R.No.483647 dated 06.06.1986. Since the truck met with an accident, a meeting was held and it was agreed that a crane would be engaged to lift the consignment from the accident spot. The defendant had also accepted to pay crane charges along with the freight charges at the time of taking delivery of consignment from the plaintiff. The consignment was delivered to the defendant on 11.08.1986 and its bill for charges incurred in engaging a crane amounts to Rs.26,925/-. The plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant on 212. 1986 demanding payment and the defendant replied to the same by letter dated 212. 1986 regretting their inability to settle the amount. Thereafter, the defendant by its letter dated 05.03.1987 enclosed a cheque for Rs.26,925/- requesting the plaintiff to issue open delivery certificate against such payment. The plaintiff agreed to issue the certificate on realization of the draft. As the defendant wilfully neglected to make payment which was unpaid for more than 9 months, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,925/- payable with interest at 18% per annum.

3. In the written statement, the appellant/defendant has stated that the plaintiff is not a registered partnership firm and if so, the defendant has put the plaintiff to strict proof that there is sufficient and strict compliance of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. He also stated that the plaint is signed by the Regional Manager of the plaintiff firm, who is not competent to sign the plaint for and on behalf of the registered partnership firm and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. As per the undertaking given by the plaintiff to the consignor at Faridabad and as per the terms of carriage the plaintiff had with the consignor, the defendant is under an obligation to pay Rs.1200/- per tonne by means of an account payee cheque on due performance of the public employment. According to the defendant, there was no contract between them and the plaintiff to pay the said crane charges claimed by the plaintiff. On 27.03.1987, the defendant wrote a letter demanding compensation in respect of damages sustained by their machine. Therefore, according to the defendant the suit claim is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Trial Court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.38,237/- with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.26,925/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization with costs. Aggrieved over the judgment of the Court below, the defendant has filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the fact that in respect of a partnership firm it should be specifically pleaded that it is a registered partnership firm under Section 69(2) of the partnership Act and prove such fact coupled with execution of the plaint and verification of the same by a person who is reflected as a partner in the register of Registrar of Firms; it is the responsibility of the carrier to deliver the consignment at the destination and the appellant is in no way