An agreement that contravenes the provisions of a statute and is opposed to public policy is void and unenforceable under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. the suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1, 59,800/- against the 1st defendant personally and against the estate of Ramanavarapu Madhusudana Rao in the hands of defendants 2 to 5.

( 2 ) THE averments in the plaint may be briefly stated :the 1st defendant and r. Madhusudana Rao are owners of a cinema theatre by name vijayalakshmi Talkies at Guntur and they entered into an agreement on 5-12-1973 with the plaintiff granting a right to exhibit films in the theatre from 5-12-1973 to 4-12-1976 on payment of Rs. 40,000/- per annum. On 5-12-1974 the 1st defendant and R. Madhusudana Rao obstructed the plaintiff from exhibiting the film "roti Kapada Aur Makaan" and put up their banner "illarikam . the suit claim comprises a sum of Rs. 34,322-13 being the cash taken away by the defendants, Rs. 10,471-83 towards article retained by the defendants, Rs. 53,523-56 towards profits for the rest of the period for which the plaintiff is prevented from exhibiting the films, rs. 15,944-45 representing the returns from advertisement agency known as beacon Advertisements for the remaining two years, the sum of Rs. 9,350/- towards hire charges from cycle stand and canteen, the sum of Rs. 19,500/- for the resl of the two weeks for running the film roti Kapada Aur makaan and interest of Rs. 5,170-03 on the said amounts. Thus the plaintiff is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,59,800/- comprising the items mentioned above.

( 3 ) THE plea of the 1st defendant is that the agreement is void and opposed to Sec. 23 of the Contract Act and such as unforceable. the plaintiff is only a licensee and the contract can be terminated at will. the contract is from year to year and the plaintiff indulged in malpractices of evading entertainment tax, counterfeit seals an fascimiles of the Commercial fax department and the 1st defendant issued a registered notice on 4-12-1974 cancelling the contract after the close of one year. the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered and delivered possession of the theatre on the night of 4-12-74 and delivered the print of the film roti Kapada Aur Makaan to the distributors and therefore the question of damages to the plaintiff does not arise. the defendants sustained a loss of Rs, 30,000/ -. the amount of Rs. 10,000/- sent by the plaintiff as advance for the second year was paid towards arrears of entertainment tax due by the plaintiff. the plaintiff did not earn profits and therefore the claim towards loss of profits and other heads is not sustainable.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 adopted the written statement of the 1st defendant.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 6 to 9 are added as legal representatives on the death of the 4th defendant.

( 6 ) THE 1st defendant in his written statement put in a counter claim for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on several counts including repairs to curtains, fans, screen etc. the plaintiff filed a rejoinder denying the claim.

( 7 ) ON the pleadings set out above, the following issues are framed : (1) Whether the agreement, dt. 5-12-1973 is opposed to public policy and is hit under Section 23 of the Contract Act? (2) Whether the court fee paid is not correct? (3) Whether the document dated 5-12-1973 is a licence terminable at will or a licence coupled with grant? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages claimed ? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to value of moveables? (6) To what relief?the following additional issues are framed: (1) Whether the counter claim made by the defendent is true and valid? (2) Whether the counter claim made by the 1st defendant is not legally enforceable? (3) Whether the counter claim is not made in proper form? again the following additional issue is framed : (1) Whether defendants 6, 8 and 9 are necessary parties and whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties ?

( 8 ) ). the learned District Judge found that the agreement is violative of conditions of licence and the provisions of the A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) A