V BASAVAYYA Vs. N KOTTAYYA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Anantanaravana Avyar, J. -
(1.) Veguntha Basavayya, as sole plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 209 of 1952 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Eluru, for a dissolution of partnership business carried on between him (plaintiff) and the defendant and for accounts. The case of the plaintiff was that he and the defendant were partners of a partnership firm and did business from 1944 to 1947 in sundry articles and cloth. The defendant contested the suit raising various contentions which result ed in various issues. Of them, Additional Issue No. 1 framed on 31-7-1954 was: "Whether the suit is not maintainable by reason of the suit partnership being void"? The learned Principal District Munsif heard this as a preliminary issue and held that the suit partnership was illegal, void and unenforceable and that the suit was not main tainable. Accordingly he dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff filed A.S. No. 36 of 1955 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The latter framed 3 single point for decision, namely, "Whether the suit is maintainable or not". He agreed with the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Thereupon the plaintiff filed this second appeal.
(2.) When the second appeal originally came up for hearing before our learned brother, Seshachalapathi, J. he passed an order dated 3-8-1961 as follows : "The two Courts below have relied upon the decislcn in Pisupati Rama Rao v. Tadepalli Papayya, 1954-2 MLJ (Andh) 103 : (AIR 1954 Andh 51). That decision had been rendered on the language of an express prohibition erected under Sections 13 and 16 of the Rice Rationing Order of 1943. It is not in dispute that the Madras Cloth (Dealers) Control Order of 1948 does not in express terms contain a prohibition analogous to Sections 13 and 16 of the Rice Rationing Order of 1943 referred to above. The question is bereft of any direct authority of this Court. A decision of the Calcutta High Court in Matizuddin Khan Choudhury v. Habibuddin Sheikn, (S) AIR 1957 Cal 336, has been brought to my notice which, while dealing with the terms of the Bengal Silk Control Order of 1945, held that forming a partnership for running the licensed business is neither illegal nor opposed to public policy. In view of the importance of question and the large number of similar cases that may arise, I direct that this Second Appeal may be posted before a Bench." Accordingly, this appeal has come up before this Bench.
(3.) The points which arise are: (1) Whether the suit partnership is void? And (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable on that ground?;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.