P N DORAIRAJ Vs. N G RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the appellants. The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11. 048-26 on the foot of a promissory note dated 21-10-1966 executed by the defendants. The facts leading to the execution of the promissory note are as follows. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 entered into a partnership. But the terms of the partnership were not reduced to writing. The parties also had not let in any oral evidence to show as to what was the object of business of the partnership. But it is seen from the notices exchanged between the parties and the licences issued under the cinematograph Act, they were running a touring cinema under the name and style 'shanthi Talkies'. The licence issued under the Madras Cinema (Regulation) Act 1955 was in the name of the second defendant and is dated 11-12-1965 and the licence covered a period from 13-2-1965 to 18-2-1966. Though the licence is in the name of the second defendant the cinema business was run by the partnership consisting of the plaintiff and defendants. It appears that the parties carried on the business till the expiry of the period of the licence and they had to shift the camp to a different site and obtain a fresh licence. The licence for the new site was obtained on 15-6-1966 and the licence itself came into force on 19-9-1966. It appears the plaintiff did not want to continue as a partner in the new camp and insisted that he should be allowed to get out of the partnership with his share of the partnership capital. The defendants agreed ultimately for the plaintiff getting out of the partnership and towards due to the plaintiff the defendants executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 10,590. The suit has been filed for this sum with interest due thereon, on default of the defendants to pay the principal and interest when demanded.

(2.) THE defence was that the plaintiff procured the cinema licence in the name of the second defendant as sole proprietor of the business but caused the business, to be run in partnership consisting of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to

(3.) SUCH a partnership is illegal, opposed to public policy and would defeat and circumvent the provisions and the rules and regulations relating to touring cinema business. The promissory not was executed in respect of the amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the said illegal partnership towards his share of the business without any dissolution of the partnership or without looking into accounts and that therefore it was void and unenforceable under S. 23 of the Indian Contract Act. It was further contended by the defendants that they were not agreeable to the plaintiff getting out of the partnership before the end of the period of the subsequent licence, but they were forced and coerced to execute the promissory not on threat of legal proceedings without even looking into the accounts of the partnership. Since there was no dissolution of the partnership as such and the business was not wound up the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount recited in the promissory note. 3. The parties did not adduce any oral evidence and the only documents that were filed were the promissory note, the licence issued under the cinematograph Act and the notices exchanged between the parties.