Skip to content


P.P. Sundararaja Aiyangar Vs. P.L. Mannarsawmi and - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1937Mad528; (1937)1MLJ610
AppellantP.P. Sundararaja Aiyangar
RespondentP.L. Mannarsawmi and ;r. Narayana Aiyangar Firm by Managing Partner R. Narayana Aiyangar
Excerpt:
- .....of the fact that the money was borrowed before the indian partnership act came into force, the suit is maintainable in the face of section 69 of the act.2. section 69 makes it clear that no suit of the description can be brought after the act comes into force. it is argued that this is controlled by section 74; but section 74 in my opinion although it keeps intact any rights that may have accrued before the act came into force, does not affect the enforcement of that right by means of a suit which is governed by section 69. by virtue of section 1 of the act, section 69 came into force one year after the rest of the act and undoubtedly the purpose of this is to give persons a year's grace in bringing suits of this description or in getting themselves registered. in view of the plain.....
Judgment:

Horwill, J.

1. This was a suit by an unregistered partnership against a debtor. The only question raised in the suit and in this petition is whether, in view of the fact that the money was borrowed before the Indian Partnership Act came into force, the suit is maintainable in the face of Section 69 of the Act.

2. Section 69 makes it clear that no suit of the description can be brought after the Act comes into force. It is argued that this is controlled by Section 74; but Section 74 in my opinion although it keeps intact any rights that may have accrued before the Act came into force, does not affect the enforcement of that right by means of a suit which is governed by Section 69. By virtue of Section 1 of the Act, Section 69 came into force one year after the rest of the Act and undoubtedly the purpose of this is to give persons a year's grace in bringing suits of this description or in getting themselves registered. In view of the plain wording of Section 69, I find that the learned District Munsif was wrong in holding that this suit was maintainable and in granting a decree. The petition is therefore allowed with costs throughout and the suit dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //