Partnership Ajudhia Pershad Ram Pershad v. Sham Sundar, ILR (1947) as Lah 417 ), the interest in a partnership of a partner is to be regarded as movable property when it is sought to be dealt with under O. 21 R. 49, Civil Procedure Code, notwithstanding that at the time when it is charged or sold, the partnership assets include immovable property.

Partnership Chandrakant Manilal Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, AIR 1992 (SC) it cannot be said that when a coparcener enters into a partnership with the karta of a HUE and contributes only his skill and labour, no contribution of any separate asset belonging to such partner is made to meet the requirement of a valid partnership. Reverting to the facts of the instant case it is noteworthy that it is not the case of the Revenue that the partnership between Chandrakant Manilal Shah as karta of HUE and Naresh Chandrakant was fictitious or invalid on any other ground.

Partnership In Commr. of Income-tax V. Sir Hukumchand Mannalal and Co., (1970) 78 ITR 18 "The Indian Contract Act imposes no disability upon members of a Hindu undivided family in the matter of entering into a contract inter se or with a stranger. A member of a Hindu undivided family has the same liberty of contract as any other individual : it is restricted only in the manner and to the extent provided by the Indian Contract Act. Partnership is under Section 4 of the Partnership Act the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all : if such a relation exists, it will not be invalid merely because two or more of the persons who have so agreed are members of a Hindu undivided family."

Partnership I.P. Munavalli v. Commr. of Income-tax, Mysore, (1969) 74 ITR 529, it was held by the Mysore High Court, after referring to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Lacchmandas, and of Supreme Court in the case of Bhagat Ram, :- "So it is clear that the Supreme Court did not dissent from the opinion expressed by the Privy Council that "in respect of their separate or divided property" the coparceners of a Hindujoint family, even though they had not become divided from one another and there had been no partition of the family properties, could become partners of a firm of which the Joint Hindu family represented by its karta is itself a partner. If a partner by putting into the partnership by way of his capital his separate property or the property which he obtained at a partition on division and thus can become a partner with the family represented by its karta, it is difficult to understand how such a partnership cannot come into being and why a coparcener who continues to remain a member of the coparcenary cannot become a working partner of a firm of which he and the family represented by its karta are the partners. In Lachhman Das's case the coparcener placed at the disposal of the firm as his capital his separate property, and in the case of a working partner he contributes his skill or labour or both as the case may be. If the partnership is permissible in one case, it would be difficult to assign any reason for reaching the conclusion that it is not permissible in the other."

Partnership –Sec 69(2) Purushottam v. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, 2007 (4) JT 564 (SC) With respect, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the principles enunciated in Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr. Having regard to the purpose Section 69(2) seeks to achieve and the interest sought to be protected, the bar must apply to a suit for enforcement of right arising from a contract entered into by the unregistered firm with a third party in the course of business dealings with such third party. If the right sought to be enforced does not arise from a contract to which the unregistered firm is a party, or is not entered into in connection with the business of the unregistered firm with a third party, the bar of Section 69(2) will not apply. In the instant case the contract was entered into with the respondent firm by the erstwhile proprietor of the concern namely Purushottam. The partnership firm came into existence later. The amount claimed in the suit were due to the proprietor Purushottam who carried on his proprietary business in the name and style of "Dinesh Paper Mart". When he entered into partnership with others, he contributed to the partnership by way of his contribution to the capital, all the assets and liabilities of his erstwhile proprietary concern. Thus, though the partnership firm, which was unregistered, became entitled to enforce the contractual obligation of the defendant firm which it owed to Purushottam, the contract was not one entered into by the unregistered firm with a third party, nor was it one entered into by the unregistered firm in the course of its business dealings with the defendants. So viewed, the bar of Section 69(2) cannot apply to the suit filed by the Plaintiff - appellants.

Partnership –Sec 69(2) Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. Vs ganesh Property 1998 (7) SCC 184 that the bar in Section 69(2) of the Act did not operate to bar a suit by an unregistered firm seeking enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right. It was held that a passing off action being a common law action based on tort, and not on contract, Section 69(2) did not apply. The reliefs of permanent injunction and damages were claimed on the basis of infringement of registered trademark. Thus the suit was held to be one based on statutory right under the Trade Marks Act, and therefore not barred by Section 69(2). "A mere look at the aforesaid provision shows that the suit filed by an unregistered firm against a third party for enforcement of any right arising from a contract with such a third party would be barred at its very inception. To attract the aforesaid bar to the suit, the following conditions must be satisfied : (i) That the plaintiff-partnership firm on the date of the suit must not be registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act and consequently or even otherwise, the persons suing are not shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm, on the date of the suit. (ii) Such unregistered firm or the partners mentioned in the sub- section must be suing the defendant-third party. (iii) Such a suit must be for enforcement of a right arising from a contract of the firm with such a third party".

Partnership –Sec 69(2) D.D.A. v. Kochhar Construction Work and Anr., (1998)8 SCC 559. In view of the clear provision of the Act it was not possible to subscribe to the view that subsequent registration of the firm may cure the initial defect, because the proceedings were ab initio defective as they could not have been instituted since the firm in whose name the proceedings were instituted was not a registered firm on the date of the institution of the proceedings.

Partnership –Sec 69(2) M/s. Shreeram Finance Corporation v. Yasin Khan and others, (1989)3 SCC 476, a suit filed by the existing partners of the firm after reconstitution was not maintainable if the newly added partners were not shown as partners in the Register of Firms under the Act. In that case the suit was filed in the name of the current partners as on the date of the suit, whose names were not shown as partners in the Register of Firms maintained under the Act. It is no doubt true that in the aforesaid decision the bar was attracted not on account of non-registration of a partnership firm but on account of the fact that the persons suing had not been shown in the Register of Firms as partners of the firm.

Partnership M.V. Karunakaran v. Krishan, AIR 2007 (SC) 1501 The partners as pre-existing co-owners had a definite share of the property. They merely applied their own property for running a business in partnership. On dissolution of the partnership, their right in the property revived. Using of a premises for business purpose would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the premises belonged to the partnership firm.

Partnership Addanki Narayanappa and another v. Bhaskara Krishnappa (dead) and thereafter his heirs and others [AIR 1966 SC 1300], this Court opined : "...The whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purchase to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property. Once that is done whatever is brought in would cease to be the exclusive property of the person who brought it in. it would be the trading asset of the partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their share in the joint venture of the business of partnership. The person who brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive right over any property which he has brought in, much less over any other partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his right even to the extent of his share in the business of the partnership. As already stated his right during the subsistence of the partnership is to get his share of profits from time to time as maybe agreed upon among the partners and after the dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from partnership of the value of his share in the net partnership assets as on the date of solution or retirement after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges..."