NELDON COMPANY Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is "M/s. Neldon Company", a partnership firm. The suit was filed by its Managing Partner, Mrs. Kunjumol Mathai, for realisation of the balance amount due under Ext. A1 pronote. One of the contentions was a vague plea of discharge. That is unsupported by any evidence and concurrently found against. The plea was not further pursued. Suit was dismissed and the decision was confirmed in appeal solely on the ground of maintainability for want of proof of conditions of S.69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. That is the only moot point in this second appeal filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) In cases like this where there is a genuine claim which is not disputed, courts are expected to be more circumspect in dismissing the suit on such a plea especially when the contention itself is vague and evidently without bona fides. The purpose of the provision also should not be ignored. No plea as such was raised specifically-under S.69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. Registration of the partnership was denied. But the firm is proved to be registered by production and proof of Ext. A2, which is the original acknowledgment of the registration of firm. The only other contention is that Kunjumol Mathai, who signed the plaint as Managing Partner, is not the Managing Partner. There was no contention that she was not shown in the register of firms as a partner of managing partner. As DW 1, first defendant said that the above contentions were without any enquiry or knowledge and he cannot deny that the firm is registered and Kunjumol is the managing partner. Thereafter, he admitted frankly that the firm is registered and he knows the registered office also. He also said that now he knows that the person who signed the plaint is the managing partner. Thus the requirements of S.69 are practically admitted and proved.

(3.) First part of S.69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act providing that the suit is not maintainable unless the firm is registered was, therefore, at any rate not available to the Trial Court or the appellate court for dismissing the suit. Then the only question is whether the suit is not maintainable for the reason that the person who signed the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff firm is not shown in the register of firms as partner, There is no such contention. Then I fail to understand how the suit could have been dismissed without any surviving contention regarding maintainability under S.69 (2).