Judgment:

GAJENDRAGADRAR, J.: The short question which arises in these two appeals is whether the Muchalika (Agreement of Reference) which was executed by the appellant and the four respondents in favour of Tanguda Narasimhamurty on the 30th of December, 1943, is invalid because its consideration was opposed to public policy under S. 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Both the trial Court and the High Court of Orissa have answered this question in the negative, and the appellant, who has come to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution, contends that the said conclusion is contrary to law.

2. It appears that the appellant took a lease of the Parlakimedi Samasthanam Rice & Oil Mill for three years from 1941 to 1944 under a registered lease-deed on the 9th December, 1940. The rent agreed to be paid was Rs. 7,000 per annum. For the working of the Mill, the appellant took six partners with him, and their shares in the partnership were duly determined. This partnership carried on the work of milling rice and extracting oil from ground- nuts.

3. The appellant also carried on another business in paddy and ground-nuts and in this business too he t