Kapur, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Jagan Nath, Senior subordinate Judge, Hissar, dismissing the plaintiffs suit.

2. The plaintiffs claiming to be a Joint Hindu family arm brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- on account of "non-delivery or mis-appropriation" of pledged goods. The defence inter alia was that the plaintiff-firm was not a joint faintly firm and no suit could be instituted because it was not a registered firm. The learned Judge raised two issues:

" 1. Is the plaintiff-firm a joint Hindu family business and does not require registration?

2. If not, should the suit fail?"

He held that it was not a Joint family firm and as it was admitted that it had not been registered under Section 69, Partnership Act it could not institute the suit and even" though the registration had been effected after the suit had been brought the defect of want of registration could not be rectified.

3. Counsel for the appellants has submitted in the first instance that the plaintiff-firm is a joint Hindu family firm and is not a contractual firm and, therefore, no registration was necessary.

4. Ther