MANI RAM MISRA Vs. PURSHOTAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the Court below is appellant before us. He sued the respondents for a declaration that he the plaintiff was the person who held a particular set of contracts obtained from the railway company, that the defendants worked as the plaintiff's servants and that all the profits received by the carrying out of the contract ought to go to the plaintiff. He sued for accounts besides for declaration.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that he used to take contracts from the railway company, but for certain reasons the railway company refused to grant him any further contract. In order to secure further contracts from the railway company he agreed with the defendants that defendant 1 would put himself forward as the applicant for the contracts and when the same were secured defendant 1 and defendant 2 would serve for a pay the plaintiff the real contractor.

(3.) The defence to the suit was two fold. One was that the plaintiff's case was not true and the defendants were the real contractors, and secondly, the agreement alleged by the plaintiff was void under Section 23, Contract Act. The learned Subordinate Judge gave effect to both the pleas. He held that on evidence the plaintiff had failed to make out his case and that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was void under the provisions of the Contract Act. In this appeal we have heard the point of law raised by the defendants and we are of opinion that it succeeds. In the result we have decided not to hear the case on the facts.