Skip to content


Sanka Punnaiya Vs. Battu Bhadraiya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948Mad441; (1948)1MLJ394
AppellantSanka Punnaiya
RespondentBattu Bhadraiya
Cases ReferredShanmugha Mudaliar v. Rathina Mudaliar
Excerpt:
- - in july, 1947, however, that decision was disapproved by a bench of this court (gentle, c......the firm is registered etc. etc.he referred also to the fact that reliance had been placed for the applicant on clause (3) of the section which exempts suits instituted to realise the property of a dissolved firm but held that that clause would not assist the applicant in view of the decision of this court in a.t. ponnappa chettiar v. bodappa chettiar (1944) 2 m.l.j. 406. the judgment of the district munsiff was delivered on the 5th july, 1946, and at that date the decision relied on had not been questioned in this court. in july, 1947, however, that decision was disapproved by a bench of this court (gentle, c.j. and govindarajachari, j.) in shanmugha mudaliar v. rathina mudaliar : air1948mad187 . it was there held that the words of sub-clause (3) of section 69 are very wide and remove.....
Judgment:

Clark, J.

1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to revise the judgment in Small Cause Suit No. 29 of 1946 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Tenali. The applicant filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 294-8-0 due on account of dealings with the respondent. In his plaint the applicant stated that the transactions had been between the defendant and a firm in which he, the applicant, was a former partner. He pleaded that that firm was dissolved in April, 1943 and that subsequently he became solely entitled to collect the outstandings of the firm on a decree of compromise arrived at in proceedings between himself and his former partner. The District Munsiff stated in his judgment that the decision of this case depended on whether or not it was found that the suit was maintainable under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. He referred to Clause (2) of that section which lays down that,

No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered etc. etc.

He referred also to the fact that reliance had been placed for the applicant on Clause (3) of the section which exempts suits instituted to realise the property of a dissolved firm but held that that Clause would not assist the applicant in view of the decision of this Court in A.T. Ponnappa Chettiar v. Bodappa Chettiar (1944) 2 M.L.J. 406. The judgment of the District Munsiff was delivered on the 5th July, 1946, and at that date the decision relied on had not been questioned in this Court. In July, 1947, however, that decision was disapproved by a Bench of this Court (Gentle, C.J. and Govindarajachari, J.) in Shanmugha Mudaliar v. Rathina Mudaliar : AIR1948Mad187 . It was there held that the words of Sub-clause (3) of Section 69 are very wide and remove any disability which existed during the continuance of the partnership, that accordingly one of the partners of a dissolved unregistered partnership who by an arrangement with the other partner had become entitled to a debt due from a third party to the partnership can sue to recover that debt and that it cannot be contended that such a suit is not maintainable by reason of Section 69(2) of the Act.

2. Accordingly the case will be remanded to the trial Court for disposal in.the light of this judgment. The respondent who has not appeared at the hearing of this application will pay the applicant's costs.


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