ZAHIR-UD-DIN Vs. SHEIKH GH AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an agreement deed dated 3rd January, 1969 the parties to this suit entered into a partnership for carrying business of plying motor vehicle No. 6591/JKA. On the basis oF this partnership the plaintiffs, herein, subsequently filed a suit against the defendant, herein, for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The suit was dismissed by this court in appeal holding that the partnership was void, being violative of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The plaintiffs have now filed this suit for recovery of the share -capital of Rs. 14,000/ - advanced by them to the defendant and claimed, in addition, a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as profits. Their case is that the defendant is bound to refund the share capital together with profits at the rate of Rs. 800/ - per month upto the date of thE institution of the suit on the ground that the partnership was discovered to be void when it was so decided by this court adding that they were induced by the defendant to make the aforesaid investment on the representation that the business could give them huge profits. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that he was an agriculturist and as such the suit was triable under the Agriculturists Relief Act. This objection was put in issue and eventually decided against the defendant by order of this court dated November 25, 1971. That order will form part of this judgment. On merits the defendant pleaded that the partnership deed having been heir! to be void abi nUio on the ground that it contravened the Motor Vehicles Act, the plaintiffs are not entitled in law to recover the share -capital muchless the profits adding that as a matter of fact too no profits were made or appropriated by him. In this the defendant has relied on the principle that no right of action can be founded upon an immoral or illegal act. He has denied that he induced the plaintiffs to make the investment and alleged that in fact he was induced by the plaintiffs to enter into partnership which, they knew, was against law.

(2.) THE following issues were framed by my learned brother, Jaswant Singh J. as he then was:

(3.) ON evidence it is difficult to hold that the defendant induced the Plaintiffs to enter into partnership and part with the share capital of Rs. 14,0007 - in his favour. The sole witness Mohammad Iqbal, Plaintiff No. 3, examined by the. plaintiffs frankly admits that before the partnership was entered into the parties discussed the matter for 4/5 days in presence of several persons adding that after the terms were mutually settled by the parties, they got the partnership deed scribed by a petition writer who read over and explained its contents to the parties before they affixed their signatures to it. The defendant, who has appeared as his - own witness in rebuttal, hat even suggested that he made it known to the plain -tiffs that the law did not permit a partnership of the kind proposed by them and gave them his own recipe but plaintiffs did not heed his suggestion and retorted that they were influential people and could get the matter mended. In this state of evidence one cannot help concluding that there was no inducement by one party or the other, the true position being that the parties went in for partnership out of their free will knowing full well that it was not permitted by law.