A single partner of an unregistered dissolved firm cannot sue independently without joining the other ex-copartners.

1. This appeal is by Seth Narayandas, who described himself as the proprietor of 'Ambarish Patel and Company, Itarsi', in the suit filed to recover a sum of Rs. 5,506/4/-from the two defendants, Dr. Shardaprasad Nigam and Chandragopal, who are respondents here.

2. On 14th August 1951, Dr. Shardaprasad Nigam entered into a contract with Ambarish Patel and Company to supply bamboos, for which he received two hundis for Rs. 2,000/-and Rs. 3000 respectively. The agreement between Dr. Nigam and the Company was signed by Ishwarlal (D. W. 2): Later this agreement was cancelled, and D. Nigam undertook to return the money which, he admitted, was in deposit with him. This was on 2nd October 1951. Both the agreement and the cancellation are incorporated in one document, which is Ex. P-5.

3. The defendants, when they appeared in Court, raised the plea that the suit was filed on behalf of an unregistered partnership and was, therefore, incompetent. The question, therefore, arose whether Narayandas was suing in his personal capacity or on behalf of an unregistered firm of partners, The trial Court found that Ambarish Patel and Company was an unreg steredp artnership of Narayandas, Ishwarlal and one other. In answer to the statement of the defendants, Narayandas had taken the plea that Ishwarlal was his servant and not a partner, and that the third person was associated with his business merely to learn business methods. The questions in this appeal, therefore, are: (i) whether the finding given by the trial Court is correct; and (ii) if so whether the suit filed by Narayandas can be said to be by or on behalf of the partnership and is saved by sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.

4. The witnesses in the case were examined in the reverse order the burden being placed upon the defendants in view of their having raised the plea of partnership, and also because of the admission contained in Ex. P__5 that the money was in deposit for Ambarish Patel and Company. The defendants examined five witnesses, including Dr. Nigam and Ishwarlal. Ishwarlal, as D.W.3 deposed that he was a partner of Ambarish Patel and Company and was paid Rs. 3000 by way of remuneration, but no share in the profits and that he did not care to claim his share in the profits. He explained how the partnership was working and who were the members there of. This evidence of Ishwarlal was corroborated by defendant Dr. Nigam who as D. W. 1 stated that Ishwarlal and Nirayandas had admitted the fact of partnership to him when the agreement was entered into. The other witnesses, namely, Jainarayan Dixit (D. W. 2) and Deokinandan (D. W. 4) also deposed to statements made from time to time by Narayandas that the business of Ambarish Patel and Company was being carried on in partnership with Ishwarlal and one other. As against this, the plaintiff alone entered the witness-box in rebuttal, though he had stated earlier that he would examine no less than six witnesses. He denied the partnership and stated that Ishwarlal was his servant, as also the third person, who was alleged to be associated in the partnership.

5. The trial Court on this evidence and the further fact that Ishwarlal had entered into the original agreement with the first defendant Dr. Nigam, came to the conclusion that partnership was proved. It therefore, held that the suit was incompetent, being filed by an unregistered firm of partners, and dismissed it.

6. In this appeal, it is contended that the finding given on the question of partnership proceeds on no evidence or, at any rate, on insufficient evidence. We were taken through the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act to slow the essence of partnership, and it was stated that the admissions of Narayandas could not be construed as sufficient to prove a partnership. It was also contended that the evidence of the defence witnesses was extremely inconclusive and, therefore, could not be relied upon. We agree that as between contending partner