JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - This is an appeal by the Plaintiff which is a private limited company. Defendant No. 1 had in the year 1954 obtained a licence from the State of Orissa for procurement of rice during that year. The Plaintiff entailed into a partnership with Defendant No. 1 to carryon the aforesaid business of procurement and the business continued till June of that year. The partnership concern was assessed to income tax, super tax and surcharge amounting to rupees twenty-three thousand and odd out of which a sum of Rs. 8,777.30 p.w. as realised by attachment of the amount of the firm R.K. Agarwalla and Company lying with the supply Department. The balance of Rs. 16,335.88 p. was realised by the -Income Tax. Department from out of the money payable by the Department to the Plaintiff company by way of refund. The Plaintiff's case is that as the tax due from the partnership firm was realised by the Income Tax Department from the money due to the Plaintiff-company from the Income Tax Department, the Plaintiff-company is entitled to realise the same from the assets of the partnership firm. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- belonging to the partnership firm (R.K. Agarwalla & Company) had been invested in National Plan Loans and is now in custody of the State Bank of India in the shape of bonds. The Plaintiff therefore brought the suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that it is entitled to realise Rs. 16,335.88 p. together with interest thereon from the aforesaid bonds in the custody of the State Bank. Defendant No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Private limited company. Defendants 3 and 4 are brothers of Defendant No. 2 and are co-directors along with Defendant No. 20 of the Plaintiff company. Defendants 2 to 4 were added as proforma Defendants in the suit. 2. Defendant No. 1 who alone contested the suit did not admit the plaint allegation that the partnership business was assessed to income tax, surper tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 23,113.18 p. and that the Income tax Department realised Rs. 16,335.88 p. from the Plaintiff company. It was alleged that the amount of Re. 2. Defendant No. 1 who alone contested the suit did not admit the plaint allegation that the partnership business was assessed to income tax, surper tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 23,113.18 p. and that the Income tax Department realised Rs. 16,335.88 p. from the Plaintiff company. It was alleged that the amount of Re. 15,000/- invested in the National Plan Loans and at present in the custody of the State Bank of India is not the property of the partnership firm but belongs exclusively to Defendant No. 1 and consequently the Plaintiff-company has no right to realise its dues, if any, from out of the amount due under these bonds. The only remedy the Plaintiff had was to sue Defendant No. 1 for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts. The Plaintiff filed such a suit in T.S. 24 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur but that suit was dismissed for default. An application under Order 9, Rule 9, CPC to set aside that order was rejected and a Misc. Appeal filed in High Court against the latter order was also dismissed. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff is no more entitled to file a fresh suit for dissolution of the, partnership and for accounts. It was obviously on account of this difficulty that the Plaintiff did not frame the present suit as one for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts. It is finally contended that the suit as framed is not maintainable. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it is Defendant No. 1 alone who under the licence Ext. B was entitled to carryon the business of procurement under the State Government and that as the Orissa Food-grains Control Order, 1951 which was then in force prohibited the sale or purchase of food-grains by any person other than the dealer who was required to have a Licence, and as admittedly the partnership consisting of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 had no such licence, the formation, object and business of the partnership were in contravention of the Orissa Food-grains Control Order and as such were illegal and against public policy. That apart the partnership admittedly was not registered. Overruling the contention of the Defendant, the learned Judge held that the National Plan Loan Bond. That apart the partnership admittedly was not registered. Overruling the contention of the Defendant, the learned Judge held that the National Plan Loan Bond. C.A. 003974 and C.A. 003975 which are in the custody of the State Bank are the properties of the partnership firm and not that of Defendant No. 1 personally. He believed the Plaintiff's case that the Income Tax Department realised from the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 16000/- and odd towards dues payable to the Income Tax Department by the partnership firm. But he held that in view of the fact that the partnership was not registered, the only remedy which the Plaintiff had was to sue for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts but not to proceed to realise its dues from the assets of the firm as claimed in the plaint. He pointed out that the Plaintiff has also lost its right to sue for accounts having regard to the fact that the previous Suit (T.S. 24/54) filed by it for the purpose had been dismissed for default. In the result, he dismissed the suit; hence this appeal. 4. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that there was a partnership between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 for procurement of paddy during the year 1964 is not challenged. It is an admitted fact that this partnership was not registered. The attempt made by the Plaintiffs to show that it was not a partner in the firm but was only financing it as averred in para 2 of the plaint which is contrary to the averment made in para 10 of the plaint, is no more pressed and it is conceded that the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were partners. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the two loan bonds referred to in the plaint and at present in the custody of the State Bank are the properties of the partnership concern and not the exclusive properties of Defendant No. 1 is no more assailed. The sole question, therefore, for consideration in this appeal is whether having regard to the aforesaid findings, the Plaintiff is competent to maintain the suit in the from in which it is laid. Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in so far as it is material may be quoted. 69. The sole question, therefore, for consideration in this appeal is whether having regard to the aforesaid findings, the Plaintiff is competent to maintain the suit in the from in which it is laid. Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in so far as it is material may be quoted. 69. (1) 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 any person alleged to be or to have been a partner is the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. (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. (3) The provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract but shall not affect. (a) The enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or (b) the powers of an official assignee receiver or Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, to realise the property of an insolvent partner. xx xx xx xx The section forbids the bringing of certain suits in respect of partnerships which have not been registered under the Act. Sub-section (1) bars the right of any person suing as a partner in a firm to enforce certain rights against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm. Sub-section (2) deals with enforcement of certain claims of a firm against a third party and prohibits enforcing in a suit of any such right on behalf of the firm against a third party unless the firm is registered. Sub-section (2) deals with enforcement of certain claims of a firm against a third party and prohibits enforcing in a suit of any such right on behalf of the firm against a third party unless the firm is registered. These two sub-sections relate not only to an unregistered firm in existence but also to a firm which has been dissolved and bar all suits and proceedings by or on behalf of an unregistered firm or by or on behalf of a partner of an unregistered firm unless they come within one of the exceptions mentioned in Sub-section (3) Sub-section (3) inter alia introduces certain exceptions to the disabilities imposed by Sub-sections (1) and (2). We are not in this case concerned with Clause (b) of Sub-section (3). Clause (a) thereof makes it clear that the only remedy which is open to a partner of on unregistered firm is to ask for (dissolution of the firm and for accounts or for accounts if the firm is already dissolved. It also enables the partners in an unregistered firm which might have been dissolved to realise the property of the firm. This includes a right to sue persons against whom the firm may want to enforce any claims arising from contracts like a suit to recover a debt due to a firm which is dissolved. The present suit is not one of that category. This is a suit where, in order to succeed, the Plaintiff must rely on the partnership and must also show that the Defendant was a partner in the firm and was consequently liable in that capacity for a share of the income tax and this is where the bar contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Act comes into operation. Reliance on behalf of the Appellant is placed on two division Bench decisions one of Allahabad High Court in Sheo Duet and Ors. v. Push Ram and Ors. AIR 1947 A II 229 and the Ors. of the Patna High Court in Basantlal Jalan Vs. Reliance on behalf of the Appellant is placed on two division Bench decisions one of Allahabad High Court in Sheo Duet and Ors. v. Push Ram and Ors. AIR 1947 A II 229 and the Ors. of the Patna High Court in Basantlal Jalan Vs. Chiranjilal Sarawgi and Others, which lay down that the expression (any right or the power to realise the property of a dissolved firm in Section 69(3)(a) of the Act includes the right to recover from a third party as well as from one of the partners and consequently where a partner brings a limit against the other partner after dissolution of the firm for realising the property of the firm, the suit cannot be held to be barred u/s 69(1) of the Act. I fail to see how this dictum can be of any assistance to the Appellant in this case. On the other hand, the decision in S.H. Patel Vs. Husseinbhai Mahomed, where the facts are somewhat similar to the facts of the present case appears to me to be relevant. The facts of that case are that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were partners in a business carried on in the name of the Union Trading Agency, and that the partnership was dissolved in August, 1934. The accounts were then made up and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 6001- and odd on account of the income tax which according to the estimate made at that time, the firm would be liable to pay. Subsequently an assessment was made against he Plaintiff on account of the partnership business for the year ending 31st, March, 1934. The assessment was for its. 3,400/- and odd. The Plaintiff paid the whole amount and sued the Defendant for half the amount, giving credit for the sum of Rs. 600/- and odd already paid by the Defendant. The Plaintiff contended that he is entitled to recover this sum from the Defendant not in respect of the partnership, but as being moneys paid to the use of the Defendant and recoverable u/s 70 of the Contract Act and that Section 69 of the Partnership Act had no application. 600/- and odd already paid by the Defendant. The Plaintiff contended that he is entitled to recover this sum from the Defendant not in respect of the partnership, but as being moneys paid to the use of the Defendant and recoverable u/s 70 of the Contract Act and that Section 69 of the Partnership Act had no application. Beaumont, C.J. pointed out that this argument might perhaps have prevailed had the assessment been made on the Plaintiff and Defendant by name, so that the assessment showed on the face of it that the Defendant was liable for a part of the amount of tax charged. But the assessment was not made against the Defendant by name and in order to establish any right of action against the Defendant, the Plaintiff must rely on the partnership and must show that the Defendant was a partner in the firm referred to in the assessment and as such was liable in that capacity for a half-share of the tax. His Lordship, therefore, held that the case fell u/s 69 of the Act and the partnership having not been registered, the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover. In the present case, as Ext. 8 would show, it is the firm which was assessed to income tax, super tax and penalty and a part of the tax so levied was realised from the Plaintiff on the ground that he was a partner of the firm and as such was liable to pay the amount. It cannot, therefore, be urged by the Appellant that the basis of its claim is unconnected with the partnership business or that the transaction in question can be considered to be separate and de horse the partnership. 5. In the circumstances stated above, the suit has been rightly, dismissed. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. S.K. Ray, J. 6. I agree.