JANARDHANAN Vs. SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff. He filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,203/- from the defendant. Plaintiff says that for the purpose of conducting a trade in rice a partnership was formed with the defendant as one of the partners. The management of the partnership business was with the defendant. The business was carried on only for a short period. When the accounts of the business were settled, it was found that the plaintiff was entitled to an amount of Rs. 3203.83 from the defendant. The amount represented the capital investment and share of profits. The capital investment was Rs. 2,995/- and the share of profits was Rs. 208.83. The defendant promised payment but refused when demanded. The suit was laid for recovery of this amount.

(2.) The defendant contended that he is not liable to pay the amount. He admitted that there was a partnership business but contended that he was not the managing partner. He asserted that there was no settlement of accounts and that no amount was due to the plaintiff. He also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable since the partnership carried on the business in rice without a licence.

(3.) The trial court after evaluating the evidence found that the case pleaded by the defendant was peccant. The court found that the defendant was bound to pay an amount of Rs. 2,995/- to the plaintiff and decreed the suit to that extent. The defeated defendant filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court also considered very elaborately as to the liability of the defendant to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The appellate court found that the case pleaded by the defendant is false. It found that the defendant is liable to pay the investment of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit holding that the suit is not maintainable. The court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree since the claim was based on a contract which was hit by S.23 of the Contract Act and so it is opposed to public policy to decree the suit. Plaintiff now appeals to this court.