---

SECTION 69 – EFFECT OF NON-REGISTRATION OF A PARTNERSHIP FIRM

Section 69 contains four subsections, but Section 69(1) and 69(2) are the most important because they impose legal disabilities on unregistered firms.

Below is deep analysis of each.

---

1. SECTION 69(1): SUIT BY PARTNER AGAINST FIRM OR CO-PARTNER BARRED

A. Meaning

Section 69(1) says:

“No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or against any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner of the firm.”

This section stops partners from filing suits against the firm or against other partners if the firm is unregistered.

---

B. Key Points

1. Applies when a partner is suing.
2. Suit must be:
   • to enforce contractual rights, or
   • rights given under the Partnership Act.
3. Bar applies when:
   • firm is not registered, or
   • partner’s name is not entered in Register of Firms.
4. Applies to:
   • suits between partners,
   • suits by partner against firm.

---

C. Purpose

To compel partners to register the firm and to maintain accurate records of partners.

---

D. What Suits Are Barred Under Section 69(1)?

If firm is unregistered, partner cannot sue for:

1. Right to share of profits.
2. Right to management.
3. Right to repayment of loans or advances.
4. Right to indemnification.
5. Rights under partnership deed.

Basically, any right arising from partnership contract.

---

E. Illustrations

Illustration 1:
A, B, C form an unregistered firm. B sues A for not giving his share of profits.
Suit barred under Section 69(1).

Illustration 2:
A partner sues for reimbursement of payments made for business expenses.
This right arises from contract.
Suit barred.

---

F. Exceptions (Suits Allowed Even if Firm Unregistered)

1. Suit for dissolution of the firm.
2. Suit for settlement of accounts after dissolution.
3. Suit for realization of property of dissolved firm.
4. Suit by a minor admitted to benefits of partnership.

These are allowed because they do not enforce contractual rights while firm is ongoing.

---

G. Important Case Laws on Section 69(1)

1. M/S Shreeram Finance Corporation v. Yasin Khan (1989, SC)

Held: A partner of an unregistered firm cannot sue for any right arising from partnership contract under Section 69(1).

2. Abdul Jabbar v. Vithal Rao (1965)

Recovery of share of profits is a contractual right; suit barred.

3. Subramaniam v. Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao (2009, SC)

Suit for dissolution and accounts is not barred.

---

2. SECTION 69(2): SUIT BY UNREGISTERED FIRM AGAINST THIRD PARTIES BARRED

A. Meaning

Section 69(2) says:

“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 shown as partners in the Register of Firms.”

This prevents the firm itself from filing suits against outsiders if not registered.

---

B. Key Points

1. Applies to firms suing third parties.
2. Firm must be registered.
3. All partners who file the suit must be entered in Register of Firms.
4. Bar applies only to contractual rights.

---

C. What Suits Are Barred Under Section 69(2)?

An unregistered firm cannot sue for:

1. Recovery of money from customers.
2. Enforcement of supply agreements.
3. Enforcement of service contracts.
4. Damages for breach of contract.
5. Suits for specific performance of contract.

---

D. Illustrations

Illustration 1:
Firm sells goods worth Rs. 50,000. Customer does not pay.
Firm is unregistered.
Firm cannot sue to recover money.

Illustration 2:
Firm had a contract with a supplier to deliver goods. Supplier fails.
Firm is unregistered. The firm cannot sue supplier.

---

E. Important Case Laws on Section 69(2)

1. Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (1964, SC)

The most important case.
Held: An unregistered firm cannot enforce any contractual right, including arbitration clause.

2. Loonkaran Sethiya v. Ivan E. John (1977, SC)

Held: Section 69(2) is mandatory; unregistered firm cannot maintain a suit based on contract.

3. Firm Amar Nath v. Firm Chhotelal (1962)

Unregistered firm suing to recover money under contract is barred.

---

3. Difference Between Section 69(1) and Section 69(2)

Basis	Section 69(1)	Section 69(2)
Who is restricted?	Partner	Firm
Against whom?	Against firm or co-partner	Against third parties
Type of right?	Contractual rights between partners	Contractual rights against outsiders
Registration needed?	Firm must be registered + partner must be listed	Firm must be registered + suing partners must be listed
Exceptions	Dissolution, accounts, minor partner	No exception except non-contractual rights

---

4. Important Common Points for Both Subsections

1. Applies only to rights arising from a contract.
2. Applies only when institution of suit is sought.
3. Does not apply to:
   • Criminal cases
   • Statutory rights
   • Tort claims
4. Registration after formation is allowed and removes disability for future suits.

---

5. Conclusion

Section 69(1) and 69(2) impose strict civil disabilities on unregistered firms:

• Partners cannot sue firm or fellow partners
• Firm cannot sue outsiders

Because of these limitations, registration becomes practically mandatory even though the Act says registration is optional.

---

Below is a FULL, detailed, exam-oriented case law explanation ONLY for Section 69(1) and Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Each case is written in facts–issue–judgment–legal principle format, exactly suitable for LLB semester exams.

---

⭐ CASE LAWS RELATED TO SECTION 69(1) & SECTION 69(2) — IN DETAILED FORMAT

---

SECTION 69(1) – SUIT BY PARTNER AGAINST FIRM/CO-PARTNER BARRED

---

1. M/s Shreeram Finance Corporation v. Yasin Khan (1989, Supreme Court)

Facts:

Shreeram Finance Corporation was an unregistered partnership firm.
One partner filed a suit for recovery of money on behalf of the firm.
The defendant objected that both the firm and the partner were barred from suing since the firm was not registered.

Issue:

Can a partner of an unregistered firm file a suit to enforce contractual rights?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that Section 69(1) applies strictly.
A partner of an unregistered firm cannot file any suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract.

Legal Principle:

Section 69(1) bars suits by partners, even if filed on behalf of the firm, if:

1. Firm is not registered, or
2. Partner’s name is not shown in the Register of Firms.

This is the most important authority for Section 69(1).

---

2. Abdul Jabbar v. Vithal Rao (AIR 1965 AP)

Facts:

A partner sued his co-partner for recovery of his share of profits, under the partnership contract.
The firm was not registered.

Issue:

Is a suit for profit share maintainable by a partner of an unregistered firm?

Judgment:

Court held that sharing of profits is a contractual obligation arising from partnership deed.
Therefore, Section 69(1) bars such a suit.

Legal Principle:

Any suit by a partner enforcing rights from partnership agreement (profit share, reimbursement, management rights) is barred if firm is unregistered.

---

3. Sunderlal v. John Smidt (1961 MP High Court)

Facts:

A partner of an unregistered firm sued another partner for reimbursement of money spent for partnership business.

Issue:

Is reimbursement a contractual right?

Judgment:

Court held that reimbursement arises from the contract of partnership, so the suit is barred under Section 69(1).

Legal Principle:

Even reimbursement or indemnity claims between partners are contractual and barred without registration.

---

4. V. Subramaniam v. Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao (2009, SC) – EXCEPTION CASE

Facts:

A partner filed a suit for:

1. Dissolution of partnership,
2. Settlement of accounts,
3. Realisation of firm’s property.
   The firm was unregistered.

Issue:

Are suits for dissolution and accounts barred under Section 69(1)?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that Section 69(1) does not bar suits relating to:

• Dissolution of firm
• Settlement of accounts
• Realisation of assets of dissolved firm

Legal Principle:

Dissolution-related suits are an exception to Section 69(1).

---

SECTION 69(2) – SUIT BY UNREGISTERED FIRM AGAINST THIRD PARTIES BARRED

---

1. Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (1964, Supreme Court)

⭐ Most important case for Section 69(2)

Facts:

The unregistered partnership firm had a contract with an arbitration clause.
Firm approached the court to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Defendant argued that Section 69(2) bars the suit.

Issue:

Is enforcing an arbitration clause equal to enforcing a contractual right?

Judgment:

Supreme Court held:

• Arbitration clause is part of the contract.
• Enforcing arbitration is enforcing a contractual right.
• Since the firm was unregistered, Section 69(2) barred the suit.

Legal Principle:

Unregistered firm cannot enforce any contractual right, including arbitration.
Section 69(2) must be applied strictly.

---

2. Loonkaran Sethiya v. Ivan E. John (1977, Supreme Court)

Facts:

An unregistered partnership firm filed a suit to enforce a contract.
The defendant argued that Section 69(2) barred the suit.

Issue:

Whether Section 69(2) is mandatory.

Judgment:

Supreme Court held:

• Section 69(2) is mandatory and absolute.
• It bars any suit by an unregistered firm to enforce contractual rights.

Legal Principle:

Section 69(2) must be applied strictly; courts cannot make exceptions except those given in law.

---

3. Firm Amar Nath v. Firm Chhotelal (1962 Allahabad HC)

Facts:

An unregistered firm sued another firm for recovery of money for goods supplied.
Since the claim arose from a contract, the defendant raised Section 69(2).

Issue:

Can unregistered firm recover money under contract?

Judgment:

Court held: suit is barred because it seeks to enforce a contractual right.

Legal Principle:

Money recovery under contract is a contractual enforcement → barred by Section 69(2).

---

4. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property (1998, SC) – EXCEPTION CASE

Facts:

An unregistered firm filed a suit based on statutory rights under the Transfer of Property Act.
The defendant argued Section 69(2).

Issue:

Does Section 69(2) apply to statutory rights?

Judgment:

Supreme Court held Section 69(2) applies only to contractual rights, not statutory rights.

Legal Principle:

If the right does not arise from contract, Section 69(2) does not apply.

---

5. K.M. Molaya Gounder v. Official Receiver (1998, Madras HC)

Facts:

A third party filed a suit against an unregistered firm.
Firm argued that since it was unregistered, suit is barred.

Issue:

Does Section 69 protect the firm from being sued?

Judgment:

Court clarified Section 69 is a bar against suits BY the firm, not against the firm.

Legal Principle:

Third parties can sue an unregistered firm; only the firm’s right to sue is restricted.

---

⭐ MOST IMPORTANT CASES FOR EXAM (5 CASES LIST)

Use these five to score high marks:

For Section 69(1):

1. Shreeram Finance v. Yasin Khan (1989, SC)
2. Abdul Jabbar v. Vithal Rao (1965)
3. Subramaniam v. Rajesh Rao (2009, SC – exception case)

For Section 69(2):

4. Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (1964, SC)
5. Loonkaran Sethiya v. Ivan E. John (1977, SC)

---