9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. 2. Whether the death of a partner caused the dissolution of the firm under Section 42 of the Partnership Act. 3. Whether the conduct of the parties indicated an intention to continue the partnership. 4. Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the suit is barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act: The primary question was whether the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, which states, "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 and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm." The plaintiff contended that the suit was not brought "by or on behalf of a firm" but in his personal capacity. The Court referred to the case of Goverdhandoss Takersey v. Abdul Rahiman, where it was held that Section 69(2) applies only if the suit is instituted by or on behalf of the firm. The Court concluded that the suit was not barred by Section 69(2) because it was brought by the plaintiff in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the firm. 2. Whether the death of a partner caused the dissolution of the firm under Section 42 of the Partnership Act: Section 42 of the Partnership Act states that a firm is dissolved by the death of a partner unless there is a contract to the contrary. The Court examined whether the death of Musamal caused the dissolution of the firm. It was argued that the conduct of the parties after Musamal's death indicated an intention to continue the partnership. The Court referred to several cases, including Sokkanadha Vannimundar v. Sokkanadha Vannimundar and Gokul Krishna Das v. Sashimukhi Dasi, which held that a fresh contract to continue the business could be inferred from the conduct of the parties. The Court found that the conduct of the parties, including the application for registration of a new firm, indicated a common intention to continue the old firm. 3. Whether the conduct of the parties indicated an intention to continue the partnership: The Court considered the conduct of the parties after Musamal's death. The earlier suit was brought on the allegation that Musamal's heirs were admitted as partners in the old partnership. The plaintiff's counsel had stated in the earlier suit that the widow and adopted son of Musamal were partners. The application for registration of the new firm with the same name as the old firm further evidenced the intention to continue the partnership. The Court concluded that there was abundant evidence that the original intention of the founders was to continue the partnership despite the death of a partner. 4. Whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties: The defense argued that the suit was bad for non-joinder because the daughters of the deceased Musamal were not impleaded. The learned Small Cause Court Judge held that the absence of the daughters did not cause any non-joinder in the presence of their mother. The High Court did not find it necessary to dwell on this issue, as it was not a significant factor in the dismissal of the suit. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the suit was not barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act and that the death of Musamal did not necessarily cause the dissolution of the firm. The conduct of the parties indicated an intention to continue the partnership, and the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Court allowed the application in revision, set aside the order of the Court below, and directed the lower court to re-admit the suit to its original number and dispose of it according to law. Costs were to abide the event.
|
