2025 (4) TMI 1386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant:- a) For recovery of Rs.30,00,000/* (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) from the defendant; b) Costs of the suit; and c) For such relief or other reliefs as the Honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice." 3. In the suit proceedings, the issue as regards the maintainability of the suit was raised on the ground that a partner of an unregistered partnership firm could not have filed the Suit for recovery of money, being hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter, the "Act"). 4. The aforesaid issue was decided as a preliminary issue and the Trial Court held that the suit is maintainable. The Trial Court took the view that although there is a partnership deed on record yet as the partnership business had not commenced, the suit could be said to be maintainable. 5. The defendants being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court deciding the preliminary issue as stated above challenged the same by filing a Civil Revision Application before the High Court. 6. The High Court took the view that the suit is not maintainable, being h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the partnership firm against another partner, and it held that the partnership deed has to be registered in order to maintain a suit against the other partner. This Court is persuaded by the said judgment, since, even looked at from the point of view of equities, the respondents do not deserve to be given any concession on the ground that the business of the partnership firm has not commenced, as was done by the lower Court. Once there is an agreement of partnership, unless it is registered, no suit can be maintained by the partners for enforcing any right accruing from such agreement. 5. In view of the above, this Court opines that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 07.7.2014, passed in 0.S. No.80 of 2012 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Vizianagaram. Consequently, it is held that O.S. No.80 of 2012 on the file of the Court, of District Judge, Vizianagaram, is not maintainable." 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the materials on record. 8. It is evident from a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 that it assu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on in Mukund Balkrishna Kulkarni v. Kulkarni Powder Metallurgical Industries and Another reported in (2004) 13 SCC 750, this Court had the opportunity to consider the applicability of Section 69(1) having regard to the facts of that case. Therein, the appellant had filed a suit for declaration that the respondent no. 1 was a partnership business in which both the appellant and the respondent no. 2 had equal shares along with the prayer for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts. It was opined therein that the two embargoes which must co-exist for the plaintiff to be non-suited under Section 69(1) would be that: i. The suit should be filed by a person "suing as a partner in a firm" and; ii. The suit must be to enforce a right arising from a contract. 11. By applying the two embargoes to the facts of that case, it was held that, first, the suit for declaration as regards the existence of a partnership could neither be said to be made by a person suing as a partner nor could be said to be a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract. It was in fact a prayer to be declared a partner in the firm and was therefore, not falling within Section 69(1). Secondly, as regar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rayer for dissolution. Without the prayer for specified shares in the firm's assets and business, the relief that may be granted in a suit for dissolution would be ineffective. In the circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court and affirm the decision of the first appellate court. There will be no order as to costs." 12. In the case on hand, the petitioners (original plaintiffs) had filed the suit for recovery of money in their capacity as partners of an unregistered partnership firm, against the respondent (original defendant) in her capacity as a partner of the same unregistered partnership firm. The Trial Court itself had arrived at a finding that the agreement executed between the parties was in fact a partnership deed and not a bond as claimed by the petitioners. 13. The partnership deed dated 11.12.2009 reads as thus: "II. My taluk jenny Stone Crusher Quarry in Amathi village, Therlam Mandalam, Vizianagaram. District. I am running the crusher quarry. I am having all rights in my crusher quarry. Now it is difficult for me to run the crusher quarry. I was asked to run the crusher quarry with partnership. My well-wisher as....