MEDI SETTI PENTAYYA Vs. PILLI VENKATA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We think the Subordinate Judge was right. The plaint, as we understand it, does not allege a partnership agreement. It set up an agreement under which the plaintiff was to sell liquor on his own account on the premises of the licensee. This seems to be what is meant in paragraph 7 of the plaint and the plaint was construed in this way by the Subordinate Judge. In paragraph of 3the plaint, there is a reference to an agreement, the terms of which might have thrown some light on the matter, but the agreement is not before us.

(2.) We need not discuss the case referred to by the Subordinate Judge or the case referred to by the petitioner s Vakil, Nalan Padmanabham v. Sait Badrinath Sarda (1911) 2 M.W.N. 371 : 21 M.L.J. 425 : 9 M.L.T. 459 : 10 Ind. Cas. 126. These were cases of partnership. The plaintiff, as we understand the plaint, does not set up a partnership, but an agreement which would enable him to sell liquor on his own account in contravention of Section 15 of the Madras Abkari Act, I of 1886.

(3.) This petition is dismissed with costs.