Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010164042010 2026:GAU-AS:7733 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/49/2010 NAGEN BHUYAN, S/O LATE BHOLIRAM BHUYAN, R/O GUWAL GAON UNDER JOKAICHUCK MOUZA, DIST. SIVASAGAR. VERSUS ANIL NEOG, S/O LATE SARUKAN NEOG, R.O. DECIAL GAON UNDER JOKAICHUK MOUJA, P.O. DECIAL GAON, DIST. SIVASAGAR. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B SHARMA, MD.ASLAM,MR.G N SAHEWALLA,MR.U DUTTA,MRS.J BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,MR.G C PHUKAN, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 02.06.2026 Heard Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel appearing under instructions from Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 100 of the CPC was admitted for hearing by Page No.# 2/8 order dated 22.03.2010 on the following four substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in suit filed by one partner against another partner of a partnership firm is hit by Section 69 of Partnership Act for the reason firm is not registered as held by appellate court below? (ii) Whether Ext.-1, a document by which appellant paid Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent and respondent admitted the appellant as partner of his firm, is a compulsorily registrable document and the suit was not maintainable for non- registration as held by appellate court below? (iii) Whether finding of the learned First Appellate Court to the effect that the document Ext.-1 is in respect of immovable property compulsorily registrable is perverse? (iv) Any other question(s), which may be allowed to be raised by the Court at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. The facts, as appearing from the averments made in the plaint, are in a very narrow compass. The case of the appellant, who is the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 1 of 2003, is that prior to the year 1999, the respondent, with the consent of the appellant's father, had installed a saw mill on his land and had been running the same till March, 1999. At that point of time, the respondent faced acute financial hardship and accordingly approached the appellant for financial assistance. Pursuant thereto, the appellant invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the condition that the saw mill would be jointly operated. Accordingly, on 12.04.1999, the said amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the respondent, who agreed to comply with all the terms and conditions of the agreement, that was entered into between the parties. 4. It is projected that as per the said agreement, the appellant along with the respondent were running the said saw mill till February, 2000. Thereafter, the respondent became irregular in paying the appellant's share of profit from the said saw mill and deserted the appellant and the business Page No.# 3/8 without assigning any reason. Accordingly, as per the statement of accounts maintained by the respondent in the ordinary course of business of the said saw mill, a sum of Rs.72,013/- was due to the appellant as his share of profit for the period from 03.03.2000 to 17.03.2003. 5. It was further projected that the respondent, without making any payment, closed his business and promised to pay the arrears of profit and the capital amount of Rs.50,000/- within a year. In this regard, the parties entered into an agreement dated 07.07.2002, thereby acknowledging the outstanding amount due to the appellant. As the said amount was not paid, by projecting that the cause of action arose on and from 12.04.1999, and on 07.07.2002, and on various dates when demands were made, the appellant instituted a suit, which was registered as Money Suit No. 1 of 2003 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar, praying for a decree for Rs.1,25,000/- as described in the schedule of claim, interest at the rate of 18% per annum till full and final payment, and costs. 6. In the course of trial of the suit, the respondent filed his written statement, and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether there is cause of action? 2. Whether the plaintiff is a partner? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 4. Whether the suit is maintainable? 5. Any other relief/ reliefs to which parties are entitled to? 7. In support of his case, the appellant examined three witnesses, namely, Sri Nogen Bhuyan (PW-1), Sri Jonardan Baruah (PW-2), and Sri Niron Page No.# 4/8 Chandra Dutta (PW-3), all of whom were duly cross-examined. The appellant had exhibited the agreement dated 07.07.2002 as Ext.-1 and the signatures thereon as Exts.-1(1) to 1(8). The respondent did not adduce any evidence. By judgment and decree dated 25.05.2007, the learned trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the appellant was entitled to recover Rs.72,000/- along with the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- and interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till full and final payment. 8. In the judgment, it has been recorded that issue no.1 was decided in the affirmative, holding that there was a cause of action for the suit. In respect of issue No.2, in view of the contents of Ext.-1, it was held that the appellant had established that he was a partner of the respondent in the saw mill business and, as the respondent did not adduce any evidence, his plea of denial was not found to be trustworthy. Accordingly, the said issue was decided in favour of the appellant. In respect of issue no.3, it was held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In respect of issue no.4, it was held that the suit was maintainable, and in respect of issue no.5, it was held that the plaintiff/appellant was entitled to a decree as indicated above. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 25.05.2007, the respondent preferred an appeal, which was registered as Money Appeal No.4 of 2007. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.11.2009, the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Sivasagar, reversed the findings of the learned trial Court by holding that as Ext.-1 was a partnership agreement, the same was required to be registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act, further holding that the suit was not one for rendition of accounts, the learned Page No.# 5/8 first appellate Court reversed the findings and decree of the learned trial Court by holding that there was a statutory bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act in respect of a partnership which was not registered. It was also held that neither the partnership firm nor the agreement was registered. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has painstakingly submitted that the contents of Ext.-1 could not have been construed as a partnership agreement by the learned first appellate Court and, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the said Court is erroneous and has vitiated the impugned judgment and decree. It is submitted that the suit was a simple money suit seeking recovery of Rs.1,25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and that no relief for rendition of accounts was sought. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court could not have held the agreement between the parties to be a partnership agreement and, on that basis, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the records of the learned trial Court and the learned first appellate Court, this Court finds that while deciding issue no.2, the learned trial Court took note of the evidence of the appellant, wherein he had stated that he was a partner in the saw mill business and that due to financial difficulties faced by the respondent, he had advanced money to him. Accordingly, it was held that Ext.-1 had been executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant and that the contents thereof also indicated a partnership arrangement between the parties. Consequently, in respect of issue no.2, the learned trial Court recorded a Page No.# 6/8 categorical finding that the appellant was a partner of the respondent in the saw mill business. 12. In respect of the said finding on issue no.2, there is no record of any cross-objection having been filed by the appellant. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court on issue no.2 remained unchallenged. As there was a specific issue as to whether the plaintiff/appellant was a partner, and the same was answered in the affirmative, and that there is no challenge to the said finding. Both the learned trial Court and the learned first appellate Court proceeded on the premise that Ext.-1 was an unregistered partnership agreement. Accordingly, as the suit was not one for rendition of accounts, but the appellant was seeking relief against the respondent in his capacity as a partner of an unregistered partnership, relying upon Ext.-1. In such circumstances, the finding of the learned first appellate Court that the suit was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act cannot be faulted. 13. Accordingly, the learned first appellate Court held that the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. The suit filed by the appellant is not one for rendition of accounts, and there is a categorical admission by the appellant that he was a partner of the respondent in the saw mill business. This Court is of the considered opinion that the suit filed by the appellant, as one partner against another partner of an unregistered firm, is hit by Section 69 of the Partnership Act as the partnership was not registered and the present suit was not one for rendition of accounts. Accordingly, substantial question of law no.1 is answered in the affirmative by holding that the suit is hit by Section 69 of the Partnership Act, as the firm not registered under the Partnership Act. Page No.# 7/8 14. In respect of substantial question of law no.2, it is also decided against the appellant by holding that it is the specific case of the appellant that Ext.-1 admitted him as a partner in the business. Therefore, non-registration of the said partnership, as provided under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, would operate as a bar against the appellant in seeking enforcement of rights arising therefrom. Accordingly, substantial question of law no.2 is also answered against the appellant. 15. In respect of substantial question of law no.3, this Court is of the considered opinion that, while discussing the issues framed by the learned trial Court, Ext.-1 was not treated as a document relating to any immovable property. However, the learned first appellate Court, while referring to Ext.-1 and discussing the applicability of Section 49 of the Registration Act, appears to have made an incorrect reference to the provisions of law. The bar applicable in the present case is not one created by Section 49 of the Registration Act but by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. 16. However, as there is no cross-appeal against the finding on issue no.2 holding Ext.-1 to be a partnership agreement. Moreover, as the suit filed by the appellant is admittedly not a suit for rendition of accounts, this Court is of the view that the reference made by the learned first appellate Court to Section 49 of the Registration Act is merely an inadvertent error. The said error does not affect the merit of the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court and is, therefore, not material to the ultimate decision rendered therein. 17. Accordingly, substantial question of law no.3 is answered by holding that the reference to Section 49 of the Registration Act is merely an inadvertent Page No.# 8/8 error which does not affect the merit of the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court, which does not vitiate the impugned judgment. 18. In so far as substantial question of law no.4 is concerned, no independent substantial question of law survives for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, as no such question has been raised, the same does not require any separate answer. 19. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. 21. Let the records of the learned trial Court and the learned first appellate Court be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action. 22. The Registry shall, in due course, draw up the decree and notify the parties. JUDGE Comparing Assistant