JUDGMENT Ormond, J. - This is a Rule in which the Petitioner is Defendant No. 1 in a suit claiming a declaration that the Plaintiff has a two-thirds share in ration shop business. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it was pleaded that the agreement between the parties was that the said business belonged to the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in equal shares; they constituted a partnership The Plaintiff's case is furthermore that the pro forma Defendant, second Defendant in the suit, transferred his one-third share to the Plaintiff with the result that the Plaintiff remains the owner of a two-thirds share and the first Defendant of one-third share only. 2. From the form of the plaint, it is clear that the suit is brought for a declaration that the Plaintiff is a partner of the business to the extent of a two-thirds share. When the matter came up before the Court of first instance, a preliminary point was taken that the suit was not maintainable since it did not conform to the requirements of sec. 69 of the Indian Partnership Act (Act IX of 1932). At the request of both the parties, a preliminary issue was framed, and this issue was taken up as a preliminary issue. The learned Subordinate judge in dealing with it came to the conclusion that the suit did not fall within the terms of sec. 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act. He held that, in his judgment, the suit was outside the ambit of sec. 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act, and the maintainability of the suit was not hit for the non-registration of the alleged firm. The first Defendant has obtained this Rule in revision under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. On behalf of the Plaintiff, it has been contended that this being a suit by a person claiming a declaration that he is a partner in circumstances where the first Defendant denies the Plaintiff's partnership as alleged by the Plaintiff, does not fall within sec. 69 (1)of the Indian Partnership Act. There appears to us to be no question but that this suit is clearly covered by sec. 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act. 69 (1)of the Indian Partnership Act. There appears to us to be no question but that this suit is clearly covered by sec. 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act. Were it to be shown at the hearing of the suit that the Plaintiff was not a partner in fact and in law at the date of the institution of the suit, the Plaintiff's suit would obviously fail. It is thus beyond doubt that the principal basis of the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action is the Plaintiff's alleged partnership. It is thus impossible to suggest that the suit has not been instituted by the Plaintiff "suing as a partner." It would appear that the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded on a conception that the partnership agreement was something different from a contract covered by the section. In this the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have been in error. The only course to success for the Plaintiff in the suit must be for him to rely on the partnership agreement. In these circumstances, the suit is clearly one to enforce a right arising from the partnership agreement; and has been instituted by the Plaintiff suing as a partner; and therefore falls directly within the wording of sec. 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act. 4. A subsidiary question arises as to whether this Court should now interfere in this matter at this stage of the suit under sec. 115 or the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the whole scheme of the Indian Partnership Act, we consider that it would be wrong to put the Defendant to the trouble and expenses of defending this suit beyond this preliminary point, and that it is a fit matter in which we should interfere at this stage. The Indian Partnership Act no doubt recognises unregistered partnerships. It does not make them illegal. Far from it; it specifically allows suits to be brought for dissolution of unregistered partnerships thereby recognising the rights of the partners of such an unregistered partnership. But the clear object of sec. 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act must be to prevent partners from having the benefit of recourse to Courts of law for the enforcement of rights arising out of a partnership in circumstances covered by that section, in the absence of registration. But the clear object of sec. 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act must be to prevent partners from having the benefit of recourse to Courts of law for the enforcement of rights arising out of a partnership in circumstances covered by that section, in the absence of registration. Since the prohibition is against the institution of the suit, it would not appear to be right to compel the parties to proceed with the suit until its final disposal on all points in a clear case such as the present. 5. This Rule is accordingly made absolute. The Plaintiff is given liberty to file a fresh suit and be unprejudiced in doing so by the present suit if he so chooses hereafter to sue for dissolution of partnership within the terms of sec. 69 (3) of the Indian Partnership Act. We make no order as to costs in this Court. Mukherjea, J. I agree.