KRISHNAN NEELAKANTAN Vs. KRISHNAN KOCHUKANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions come up for consideration in this second appeal, the first being the more important one. The question is whether the failure to register under S.69 of the Partnership Act was a bar to the suit. The Trial Court held that it was not a bar, while the lower appellate court held that it was.

(2.) The appellants started a chitty as a partnership; but the partnership was not registered. The respondent was a subscriber to the chitty, who bid and received the prize money. He executed a hypothecation bond, evidenced by Ext. P-1, to secure the payment of future subscriptions. On 10th October 1957 by a special resolution evidenced by Ext. P-5 the partnership was dissolved; and thereafter, the suit giving rise to the second appeal was brought on Ext. P-1. It was then contended by the respondent that the suit was not maintainable, since the partnership was not registered.

(3.) The counsel of the appellants draws my attention to the Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Shanmugha Mudaliar v. P. V. Rathina Mudaliar ( AIR 1948 Mad. 187 ). Gentle C. J., who spoke for the Court, observed that the intention of the legislature in enacting S.69 was only to inflict disability for non registration during the subsistence of the partnership. Sub-s.(3) of S.69 is in the nature of a proviso to sub-ss.(1) and (2); and it enacts that the provisions of sub-ss.(1) and (2) shall not affect, inter alia, "any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm". It is clear from this that in the case of a dissolved firm the disability contemplated by the non registration of the firm is not to apply.