S N SONO Vs. TAUFIQ FAROOKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respdt. 4 was a partnership entered on 6-2-65 which carried on business of advancing loans. Appellant, Respdts 2 & 3 executed on 9-6-66 pro-note for Rs. 1,000.00 in its favour. A partner, Krishn Avtar gave notice of retirement on 15-12-66. Firm was dissolved and he was separated on 15-12-66. Firm owed Rs. 550.00 to Respdt. 1. Krishan Avtar in lieu of Rs. 550.00 assigned firm's pro-note of Rs. 1,000.00 to Respdt. 1. Latter filed a suit for Rs. 1,000.00 and interest. Trial Court dismissed the same. A.D.J. in 1st appeal allowed additional evidence under 0. 41 Rs. 27, Civil Procedure Code which showed that Krishan Avtar had authority to assign. Appellant filed 2nd appeal. After narrating these facts, Judgement para 6 onwards is :

(2.) Mr. Bagga contends firstly that section 19(2) (c) of the Partnership Act prohibits an implied authority of a partner to extend to compromise or relinquish any claim or portion of a claim by the firm. Secondly, the authority, if any, which has been conferred upon the said partner by the dissolution deed was made on 15th December, 1966 and the same could not be used to validate the assignment which had been made earlier on 14th October, 1966 before the deed of dissolution and further that under the law the initial invalid assignment cannot be validated by ratification. He also submits that the defendant appellant can challenge the validity and effect of the assignment.

(3.) Sections 19 and 20 of Partnership Act are: .........