IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :: 23-06-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN A.S.No.1381 of 1994 M/s.Chendur Forgings (P) Ltd., 133, Madras Mahabalipuram Raod, Perungudi, Madras 600 096. ... Appellant/Defendant vs. M/s.Bhandari Interstate Carriers, 53, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras 600 001. ... Respondent/Plaintiff Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1994 made in O.S.No.1102 of 1989 on the file of the I Asst. Judge (I/C III Asst. Judge), City Civil Court, Madras. For Appellant : Mr.Guruswaminathan for M/s.Nageswaran & Narichania For Respondent : Mr.S.Vijayakumar J U D G M E N T The unsuccessful defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1102 of 1989 has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1994 on the file of the I Asst. Judge (I/C III Asst. Judge), City Civil Court, Madras. 2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff, as put forth before the Court below, is, as under: The plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on business as Carriers, fleet owners and transport contractors. The defendant approached the plaintiff from Faridabad to its factory at Madras. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to accept the consignment and deliver it to the defendant's factory at Madras. The consignment was entrusted to them at Faridabad by M/s.Ammettep Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., to deliver it to the defendant at Madras vide L.R.No.483647 dated 06.06.1986. Since the truck met with an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accident, a meeting was held and it was agreed that a crane would be engaged to lift the consignment from the accident spot. The defendant had also accepted to pay crane charges along with the freight charges at the time of taking delivery of consignment from the plaintiff. The consignment was delivered to the defendant on 11.08.1986 and its bill for charges incurred in engaging a crane amounts to Rs.26,925/-. The plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant on 25.12.1986 demanding payment and the defendant replied to the same by letter dated 29.12.1986 regretting their inability to settle the amount. Thereafter, the defendant by its letter dated 05.03.1987 enclosed a cheque for Rs.26,925/- requesting the plaintiff to issue open delivery certificate against such payment. The plaintiff agreed to issue the certificate on realisation of the draft. As the defendant wilfully neglected to make payment which was unpaid for more than 9 months, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,925/- payable with interest at 18% per annum. 3. In the written statement, the appellant/defendant has stated that the plaintiff is not a registered partnership firm and if so, the defendant has put the plaintiff to strict proof that there is sufficient and strict compliance of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. He also stated that the plaint is signed by the Regional Manager of the plaintiff firm, who is not competent to sign the plaint for and on behalf of the registered partnership firm and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. As per the undertaking given by the plaintiff to the consignor at Faridabad and as per the terms of carriage the plaintiff had with the consignor, the defendant is under an obligation to pay Rs.1200/- per tonne by means of an account payee cheque on due performance of the public employment. According to the defendant, there was no contract between them and the plaintiff to pay the said crane charges claimed by the plaintiff. On 27.03.1987, the defendant wrote a letter demanding compensation in respect of damages sustained by their machine. Therefore, according to the defendant the suit claim is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Trial Court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.38,237/- with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.26,925/- from the date of plaint till the date of realisation with costs. Aggrieved over the judgment of the Court below, the defendant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the fact that in respect of a partnership firm it should be specifically pleaded that it is a registered partnership firm under Section 69(2) of the partnership Act and prove such fact coupled with execution of the plaint and verification of the same by a person who is reflected as a partner in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the register of Registrar of Firms; it is the responsibility of the carrier to deliver the consignment at the destination and the appellant is in no way responsible to bear the transhipment charges en route and that the trial Court failed to note that the respondent is a common carrier and as a person engaged in public employment for gain should not have called upon the appellant to bear crane charges for lifting the machine from the accident spot. It is his further contention that the person, who signed the plaint and verified the same was not a power agent duly constituted to act for and on behalf of the plaintiff; no affidavit of power was filed; there was no pleading with respect to compliance of Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act; the plaint is filed on the strength of Ex.A-20, which is a special power of attorney, executed in favour of the authorised signatory and the said power of attorney was executed by only one of the partners; there is no specific delegation of power in the Partnership Deed to a single partner to execute a power of attorney, which implies that Ex.A-20 is not valid in law and as there is no recital regarding delegation of power to a single partner to execute a power of attorney in the deed, it necessarily follows that it is a matter not provided in the deed and that the provisions of the Act will apply; the delegation of power was not provided for in the partnership deed and consequently Exs.A-20 and A-21 are all of no avail to the respondent to get over the bar under Section 69 (2); as the person who signed in the plaint is not reflected in Form-A, Ex.A- 19, the suit is hit by Section 69 (2). 6. The learned counsel would also contend that once the bar under Section 69 (2) gets attracted, the logical corollary will be that the said provision, being mandatory in nature, would make the suit incompetent on the very threshold; in view of the fact that there is no ratification clause in Ex.A-21, it will not cure the defect as on the date of filing of the suit and the Court is bound to reject the plaint; Ex.A-21 was executed only on 16.03.1990, whereas the plaint was signed by the Manager on 28.11.1988; further, a reading of Ex.A-3 will reveal that it is not an unconditional undertaking or promise to pay by the appellant, as it was subject to compliance of two conditions viz., (i) the payment will be subject to approval by Mr.Hundiwala after making enquiries at Delhi, which approval is not obtained and there is no pleading or proof to that effect, and (ii) it is agreed that Mr.Suri will send the original survey report by courier to the appellant with a copy to the consignor which is also not complied with; the finding of the trial Court to the effect that issuance of open delivery certificate is not contemplated in Ex.A-3 will not hold good; the trial Court erred in relying upon only one portion of Ex.A-3 and brushed aside the other important aspects; the appellant offered to pay the alleged charges only without prejudice to their rights and liabilities as found in Ex.A-12 and it was subject to the condition that open delivery certificate would be issued by the respondent for processing the claim of the appellant under the policy of insurance and that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent wilfully refused to receive the demand draft by contending that it may not be honourned and the refusal to give open delivery certificate will only disentitle the respondent from the relief claimed in the plaint. 7. The further argument of the learned counsel is that in the absence of any absolute undertaking to pay, the respondent is not entitled for the crane charges; Ex.A-3 was brought under undue influence; it is the duty of the plaintiff to properly and safely carry and deliver the cargo entrusted to him; the demand to pay crane charges is against law and absolute liability under Section 9 of The Carriers Act will clearly fasten the liability on the respondent, who failed to prove that the accident was not on account of his negligence and will not absolve him from the liability and that the burden of proving that a contract is not by Section 16 of the Contract Act is heavily on the person who is in a position to exercise that advantage over the other person and the respondent has exploited the predicament of the appellant whose machinery worth several lakhs of rupees was at the road side susceptible for further damages insisting on the appellant to be a party to Ex.A-3, wherein there is no concluded obligation on the part of the appellant to pay crane charges inasmuch as the prescribed conditions are not complied with. According to the learned counsel, the respondent was in a clear position to dominate the will of the appellant and even assuming that Ex.A3 is a concluded contract, it will be hit by Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions : (i) AIR 1982 Allahabad 376, Daya Shankar vs. Smt.Bachi and others : "6. ... "Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence." ... Any relationship in which one party enjoys the "active confidence" of another party who is to lean on him is enough to approximate to the kind of relationship which may attract the provisions of Section 111 of the Evidence Act with regard to the rule of burden of proof. Consequently, even if restricted and technical construction were put on the term 'fiduciary relationship', the principle enshrined in Section 111 should be extended to cases where there is proof of a person dependent, by virtue of his physical or mental infirmity or disability on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ another party and the circumstances have been proved to show that the other party, taking advantage of such position, has secured a deed or instrument for his own benefit." (ii) AIR 1984 Himachal Pradesh 11, Smt.Takri Devi vs. Smt.Rama Dogra and others : "22. The value of the gifted property is about two lakhs and there is an apple orchard in this land. The donee (Charan Dass 'deceased') was a Bairagi by caste while the plaintiff is a Brahmin. There is no relationship between the two (i.e. The donor and the donee). The plaintiff and the donee were living in different villages, which are at a distance of about 20 Kms. from one another. The plaintiff has practically gifted all landed property by the gift deed Ex.D-1. In view of these circumstances, the transaction appears to be unconscionable." (iii) AIR 1985 Madras 321, Andalammal vs. Rajeswari Vedachalam (deceased by LR) and others : "12. ... "Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof." (iv) AIR 1987 Bombay 348, Gandhi & Co., vs. Krishna Glass Pvt. Ltd. : "10. The learned Judge in that case dissented from the view of the Calcutta High Court in (1962) 66 Cal. WN 262 where the contention that the word 'and' in S.69(2) be read as 'or' was rejected. As discussed earlier, the scope and ambit of the provisions of Rr.1 and 2 of O.30 of the Civil P.C. is different from the provisions of S.69(2) of the Partnership Act. The provisions contained in Rr.1 and 2 are procedural; whereas the provisions of S.69(2) are substantive and create a bat at the threshold of the filing of suit by or on behalf of a firm, if the conditions mentioned therein are not fulfilled. S.69(2) says that "not suit shall be instituted.... by or on behalf of the firm .... unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been in the Register of Firms as partners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the firm." On a plain reading of the Section both the conditions laid down in the Section must be fulfilled and that is clear from the fact that the word 'and' is used and appears in the Section. We have already indicated that even if a suit is filed in the name of a firm it is in substance a suit by the partners of the firm and the phrase 'the persons suing' therefore, will have to be construed as the names of all the partners constituting the firm, at the time of the institution of the suit. In our opinion, the expression 'persons suing' can only mean the persons who file the suit on behalf of the firm. If this is the construction which requires to be adopted on the said phrase used in the provision it would logically follow that the word 'and' cannot be construed disjunctively, as suggested by the learned counsel. It is well settled rule of construction of a statutory provision that unless there is ambiguity or that two constructions are possible, the normal rule of giving a plain meaning to he words used has to be followed. We find that the provisions of S.69(2) are clear and unambiguous and there is no scope for giving a different meaning to the word 'and'. We, therefore, reject the argument that if the suit is filed in the name of the firm all that is required to be shown is that the firm is registered on the date of the suit and the second condition relating to the names of the persons being shown as partners in the Register of Firms does not apply to such a suit. The question of the applicability of the provisions of Rr.1 and 2 of O.30 of the Code arises only if the suit itself is validly instituted in compliance with the provisions of S.69(2) and not otherwise. These provisions of the Code, therefore, cannot be of any assistance in interpreting the provisions of S.69(2). " (v) AIR 1998 SC 3085, M/s.Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property : "22. So far as the applicability of the bar of Section 69 sub-section (2) of the Partnership Act is concerned, it is true that it is a penal provision which deprives the plaintiff of its right to get its case examined on merits by the court and simultaneously deprives the court of its jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of the controversy between the parties. It will, therefore, have to be strictly construed. It is also true that once on such construction of this provision, the bar under Section 69(2) of the Act gets attracted, then the logical corollary will be that the said provision being mandatory in nature would make the suit incompetent on the very threshold. Consequently, it is not necessary for us to examine various decisions of this Court rendered in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ connection with Section 80 of the CPC or Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 to which our attention was invited by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Nariman. We may proceed on the basis that for sustaining a suit which falls within the sweep of Section 69 sub-section (2), the condition precedent is that the firm must be registered at the time of filing of the suit. If it is not registered, the suit must be held to be incompetent from the inception. ... In the present case, we are concerned with the lease which has come to an end and the erstwhile tenant has remained in occupation as a tenant at sufferance. Under the law, the erstwhile landlord is entitled to the restoration of possession by enforcement of statutory obligation of the erstwhile tenant as statutorily imposed on him under Section 108(q) read with Section 111(a) of the Property Act. The non-compliance of the statutory obligation by the defendant when made the subject-matter of a corresponding legal right of the erstwhile landlord cannot be said to be giving rise to enforcement of any contractual right of the plaintiff arising from the expired contract of tenancy. As seen earlier, the controversy would have clearly ended in favour of the respondent and against the appellant if the plaint had referred to only the law of the land under which the defendant was required to be evicted on the expiry of the lease. But unfortunately for the plaintiff, the suit is also based on the breach of the covenant of the lease as seen from para 2 of the plaint. It is, therefore, not possible to interpret the averments with reference to the covenant of the lease only as referring to a historical fact as tried to be submitted by Dr.Singhvi for the respondent. " 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent on the above aspects, who, while repudiating the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, cited the following decisions . (i) AIR 1976 Madras 151, M.C.S.Rajan and Co. vs. National Nail Industries, Tiruchirappalli and others : "6. ... "where a plaintiff has not signed a plaint, filled with his knowledge and consent, it is an omission which can be cured, and indeed, should be corrected in the interests of justice. The omission to sign or verify a plaint is not such a defect as could affect the merits of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a case or the jurisdiction of the Court and is curable under the provisions of Section 99, Civil Procedure Code." The learned Judges have gone to the extent of saying that:- "If the defect is not discovered until the case comes on for hearing before an appellate Court, the appellate Court may order the amendment to be made in that Court. The appellate Court ought not to dismiss the suit or interfere with the decree of the lower Court merely because the plaint has not been signed." Even the Allahabad High Court dealing with a similar situation, but under the old Act, (reported in Maharaja or Rewah vs. Swami Saran, (1903) ILR 25 All 635) in a case where a plaint was filed in the Revenue Court by a person not properly authorised to sign the same at the time of presentation, but which was cured by subsequent sanction, observed as follows:- "Where the plaint in a suit filed in a Court of Revenue on behalf of a Ruling Chief was signed by a person who at the time of signing had not been specially appointed by Government for such purpose under Section 432 of Civil P.C. but was so appointed before the period of limitation in respect of such suit had expired, the plaint was a valid plaint for all purposes." Therefore, the finding of the court below on this point has to be set aside. As all other issues have been found in favour of the appellant and as there is no one appearing for the respondents before us, the appeal is allowed with costs and the plaintiff-appellant would be entitled to the decree as prayed for." (ii) AIR 1978 ORISSA 167, Prag Oil Mills Depot vs. Corporation of India and another : "7. ... "... when a case had been tried by a Court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of justice, and the policy of the legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate Court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the decision reported in AIR 1956 Hyd 133 (Radha Kishen vs. Wali Md.), Bilgrami,J. has observed as follows : "The plaint cannot be rejected under this rule merely because it is in some way defective, or not strictly in accordance with law. It is true that the grounds for rejection given in Order 7, Rule 11 are not exhaustive, and the plaint can be rejected for reasons not specified in cls. (a) to (d) of Rule 11, but then, defect for which it is rejected should not be such as is curable by amendment, and nothing more than an error of procedure. ... " 10. The only question, which arises for consideration, is, whether the appellant is liable to pay the crane charges ? 11. Before delving into the matter, it is useful to extract Section 69 (2) of The Indian Partnership Act,1932 and Sections 16, 196 and 199 of The Indian Contract Act,1872. 12. Section 69 (2) of The Indian Partnership Act,1932, reads as under : "69. Effect of non-registration. (1) ..... (2) 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." 13. Sections 16, 196 and 199 of The Indian Contract Act,1872, run as below : "16. Undue influence – (1) A contract is said to be induced by "undue influence" where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or (b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness or mental or bodily distress. (3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provision of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872." "196. Right of person as to acts done for him without his authority - Effect of ratification.- Where acts are done by one person on behalf of another, but without his knowledge or authority, he may elect to ratify or to disown such acts. If he ratifies them, the same effects will follow as if they had been performed by his authority." "199. Effect of ratifying unauthorised act forming part of a transaction. - A person ratifying any unauthorised act done on his