1. Appellant-defendant No.2 has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1991 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Indore, in Civil Appeal No. 21/89 affirming the judgment and decree dated, 28.6.1991 passed by the Fifth Civil Judge Class II, Indore, in Civil Suit No. 18-A/1981.

2. This appeal has been admitted for final hearing vide order dated 12.7.1996 on the following substantial questions of law:

(a) "Whether the appellant is liable to pay the suit amount of the partnership firm when he retired long before the transaction took place ? "

(b) "Whether the appellant is liable to pay the suit amount because no public notice was issued after his retirement especially when the respondent No.l/plaintiff did not know at the time of entering into transaction who were the partners of the said firm? "

3. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 11,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He pleaded that he delivered sugarcane to a Mill named as Shri Kisan Mill between 1.3.1978 to 1.4.1978. The Mill was being run by a firm to which the appellant-defendant No.2 was the partner. The total amount of sugarcane which was delivered by the plaintiff was of Rs.9,281.27 Paisa and the defendant No.1 firm paid only Rs.1,830/- and an amount of Rs.7,491.27 Paisa was unpaid. He served a notice but the defendant No.2 and the other defendants did not scnd reply to the aforesaid notice. The mill was closed. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the plaintiff prayed a decree of Rs.11,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

4. The defendants No.2, 3 and 7 filed joint written statement. They denied that they were the partners of the firm. Similarly, the delivery of sugarcane was also denied. During the pendency of the suit the defendants No.3 and 7 have died.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff supplied sugarcane as pleaded by him and the defendant No. 1 did not pay an amount of Rs.7,451.27 Paisa. The trial Court also held that the defendant No.2 could not be exempted from his liability on account of the fact that he was relieved from the partnership with effect from 30.6.1976, because no public notice was issued to this effect by the defendant No.2. The appellate Court also affirmed the aforesaid findings of the trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been retired from the defendant firm by a deed of dissolution with effect from 30.6.1976. Copy of the deed has been filed as Ex. D-2, hence he could not be held responsible for non-payment of the amount. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of her contention relied on the judgments reported in AIR 1960 Calcutta 463 and AIR 1986 Gujarat Page 162.

7. In my opinion, for answering the substantial questions of law and to meet out the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant the factual and legal position has to be looked into.

8. Both the Courts have recorded findings of fact that the, plaintiff supplied the sugarcane to the defendant No.1 a sugar mill which was being run by the partnership firm between 1.3.1978 to 1.4.1978 of an amount of Rs.9,281.27 Paisa. The defendant No.1 paid only Rs.1,830/and did not pay the amount of Rs.7,491.37 Paisa, hence the plaintiff is entitled to receive the balance amount along with interest which was due on the date of filing of the suit. The defendant No.2 resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that he has been retired in the year of 1976 from the partnership of the firm hence he cannot be held liable to pay the amount. He had no knowledge about the transaction between the plaintiff and the firm, defendant No.1. The deed of dissolution, Ex. D-2, has been filed. It is mentioned in the aforesaid deed that earlier deed of partnership dated 2.10.1974 shall be deemed to have been dissolved with mutual consent with effect from 30.6.1976 and the business