NOBLE KURIES Vs. SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common substantial question of law raised for a decision in these appeals is whether a fresh registration of the partnership firm is required consequent to its reconstitution to maintain a suit in view of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act (for short, "the Act") and whether non- intimation of reconstitution of the partnership firm to the Registrar of Firms would affect maintainability of the suit.

(2.) S. A. Nos. 406 of 1995 and 432 of 1995 arise from common judgment and decree of learned Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur reversing judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, North Paravur in O. S. No. 294 of 1988. Appellant, a partnership firm filed O. S. No. 294 of 1988 for a decree for realisation of the future instalments with interest allegedly payable on the basis of a chitty agreement. Learned Munsiff granted a decree in favour of the appellant. Respondent No. 4/defendant No. 4 challenged the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 34 of 1992 while respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenged judgment and decree in A. S. No. 40 of 1992. Learned Principal Sub Judge allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits. S. A. No. 656 of 1995 arises from judgment and decree of the same appellate court in A. S. No. 37 of 1992 reversing judgment and decree of the same trial court in O. S. No. 364 of 1988. That also is a suit for realisation of the money preferred by the same appellant against the respondents on the strength of a chitty agreement. The first appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(3.) Appellant, it is averred in the plaint is a partnership firm registered under the Act with its head office at North Paravur and branch at Bangalore. It started the kuri from its branch at Bangalore in which respondent No. 1 joined.