LexSUNKARI TIRUMALA RAO & ORS. versus PENKI ARUNA KUMARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 902 : 2025 INSC 92 Sunkari Tirumala Rao & Ors. v. Penki Aruna Kumari (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 30442 of 2019) 17 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether a suit for recovery of money filed by partners of an unregistered partnership firm against a partner of the same firm is maintainable. Headnotes† Partnership Act, 1932 – Section 69 – Suit for recovery of money filed by petitioners/plaintiffs, partners of an unregistered partnership firm, against respondent/defendant, a partner of the same firm – Trial Court found the suit to be maintainable as partnership business had not commenced – High Court found suit not maintainable as per Section 69(1) – SLP against High Court order dismissed – Partnership firm being unregistered would prevent the petitioners from filing a bare suit for recovery of money from the respondent: Held: Petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of money in their capacity as partners of an unregistered partnership firm, against respondent/ defendant – Maintainability of suit challenged on grounds of Partnership Act, Section 69 – Trial Court found the suit to be maintainable as partnership business had not commenced – In Civil Revision Application, High Court found the suit not to be maintainable under Section 69(1) as agreement of partnership was unregistered – SLP against High Court order dismissed – Mandatory character of Section 69(1) and (2) discussed – Seth Loonkaran Sethiya and Others v. Mr. Ivan E. John and Others relied on – Rigours of Section 69(1) would apply and the partnership firm being unregistered would prevent the petitioners from filing a bare suit for recovery of money from the respondent – Would have been more appropriate had the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit of dissolution instead, in light of the exception under Section 69(3) – Mukund Balkrishna Kulkarni v. Kulkarni Powder Metallurgical Industries and Another relied on. [Paras 15-17] [2025] 1 S.C.R. 903 Sunkari Tirumala Rao & Ors. v. Penki Aruna Kumari Case Law Cited Seth Loonkaran Sethiya and Others v. Mr. Ivan E. John and Others [1977] 1 SCR 853 : (1977) 1 SCC 379; Mukund Balkrishna Kulkarni v. Kulkarni Powder Metallurgical Industries and Another (2004) 13 SCC 750 – relied on. List of Acts Partnership Act, 1932. List of Keywords Unregistered partnership firm; Dissolution; Recovery of money; Maintainability; Existence of a partnership; Enforce a right arising from a contract. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 30442 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2019 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati in CRP No. 2944 of 2014 Appearances for Parties F. I. Choudhury, Adv. for the Petitioners. Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, Ms. Ritu Puri, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati dated 17-7-2019 in Civil Revision Petition No.2944/14 by which the High Court allowed the Revision filed by the respondents (original defendants) and thereby set aside the order passed by the District Judge, Vizianagaram in Original Suit No.80/12 deciding a preliminary issue as regards the maintainability of the suit instituted by the petitioners – herein (original plaintiffs) for recovery of money. 2. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioners – herein (original plaintiffs) instituted Original Suit No.80/12 praying for the following reliefs:- 904 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports VI. Therefore, the plaintiffs pray that the Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a Decree 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 circumsta11ces 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 Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.