Varadachariar, J.

1. I agree with Pandrang Row, J., that the present suit is maintainable and that the objection based on Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act must be overruled. The arguments that can be urged in favour of one view or the other have been fully set out in the judgments delivered by my learned brothers; it is therefore not necessary for me to deal with every one of them in detail or with the several decisions referred to in their judgments.

2. The relevant facts and dates are: The promissory note sued on was executed on 12th March, 1931, the Partnership Act except Section 69 came into force on 1st October, 1932, Section 69 came into force on 1st October, 1933, and this suit was filed in August, 1934. On these facts, the question arises, whether the plaintiffs who admittedly constitute a firm but had not got themselves registered before the date of the institution of the suit are entitled to maintain the suit. If the matter were wholly res Integra it may be open to argument whether the language of Section 69 of the Partnership Act clearly and necessarily applies to contracts entered into before the date of the coming into force of the Act. In Wright v. Greenroyd