The liability of partners in a dissolved partnership and the requirement for marketable title of the suit property influenced the court's decision.

The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the Order dated 13.07.2007, in I.A.No.1265 of 2006 in O.S.No.533 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore.

2. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed the above appeal to set aside the Order dated 13.07.2007, in I.A.No.1265 of 2006 in O.S.No.533 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent/plaintiff has filed in O.S.No.533 of 2006 against the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,42,658/- with future interest of Rs.5,000/- at the rate of 15% per annum as the amount is due by way of commercial transaction between the parties. The respondent/plaintiff has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1265 of 2006 along with the said suit. The respondent stated that the suit for recovery of the amount and the interest thereon due from the respondent as per the settlement of accounts arrived at between the defendant and plaintiff, as per the deed of Dissolution of Partnership dated 03.08.2005. The defendant and the plaintiff along with two others were conducting a partnership by name R.R.Industries. Since, the defendant himself wanted to take over the partnership and run it as a proprietary concern, the partnership was dissolved with the consent of the partners on 03.08.2005. The defendant has settled the claim of the other two partners. As far as the plaintiff was concerned, the defendant agreed to pay the amount due to the plaintiff, as arrived at between the parties through instalments. Of the five instalments in respect of the amounts due by the appellant/defendant, the respondent has not made payment of the fourth and fifth installments, which comes to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. The defendant has also agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the outstanding amount. Since, the defendant has not made this amount the plaintiff has filed a suit for the recovery of the amount due. Hence, the plaintiff apprehends that he would seriously take steps to dispose of his properties. So, the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to furnish security for the amount due to the plaintiff and on his failure, the property described in the petition be attached before Judgment.

4. The appellant/defendant has filed a counter statement stating that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to claim any sum of money from the appellant much less a sum of Rs.5,42,658/- as claimed in the plaint. Since, this appellant is not liable to pay any money which goes without saying the respondent need not furnish security for the suit claim. The appellant does not admit the genuineness of all the three plaint documents filed along with the plaint by the plaintiff. The appellant has not signed in any of the three plaint documents, they are ranked forgery and does not contain the signature of the respondent. Those documents have been fabricated by the plaintiff. In order to file a frivolous and false suit against the appellant. On this score also the suit is not maintainable and consequently the Interlocutory Application is liable to be dismissed. The petition mentioned property has been mortgaged with G.E.Money Financial Services Ltd., Hence, the first right upon the petition mentioned property is with the said company. The have to be necessarily ordered or impleaded as a party before passing an order in this application.

5. In any event, the partnership firm said to have been in existence and subsequently dissolved as per the contention of the plaintiff was an unregistered one. No suit or proceeding would be in a court of law arising from a contract,by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the register of firms as a partner in the firm as per Section 69 of the