A contract to share a liquor license is void under section 14 of the Hyderabad Abkari Act, which prohibits the transfer or sub-lease of liquor licenses without permission from the government.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in Case No. 105 of 1958 given on 2 1/12/1959 whereby he dismissed the plaintiffs suit for damages for breach of a contract.

( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case are that the plaintiff alleged that he was the contractor for supply of liquor to Bidar and Osmanabad districts for the fasli years 1346 to 1357. The plaintiff wanted to get the contract for the fasli year 1358. On learning that the defendant was also attempting to get the licence for that year, on 15th Amardad 1357 Fasli the parties reached an agreement that both the plaintiff and the defendant should submit separate tenders, that in case the tender submitted by the defendant was accepted, the parties would work out the lease on the basis of partnership between them and that each would be entitled to a half share in the profits. It was further agreed that after the tender was accepted, an application should be filed for including plantiffs name as a partner and a partnership deed should duly be got executed. The tender submitted by the defendant was accepted. In spite of demand from the plaintiff, the defendant refused to file an application for the inclusion of the plaintiffs name as a partner. He also refused to execute the partnership deed. It was therefore, contended that the defendant committed breach of contract as a consequence of which the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000. It was therefore, prayed that a decree for Rs. 50,000 be passed against the defendant, and if after taking the accounts of the said contract, some more amount was found due towards the half share of the plaintiff a decree for the same may also be passed.

( 3 ) IN his written statement the defendant denied any such agreement between the parties. He contended that he submitted the tender for himself. After the tender was accepted, it was not obligatory on the part of the defendant to file any application for the inclusion of the plaintiffs name as a partner. He had never agreed to execute any partnership deed in favour of the plaintiff. He also denied that he committed breach of contract and disputed the correctness of the claim for damages.

( 4 ) UPON these pleadings, the learned Judge framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit of plaintiff is tenable? 2. Whether it was agreed upon in between the parties on 15th Amardad 1357 Fasli (corresponding to 15/06/1948)that in the contract for the supply of liquor to Bidar and Osmanabad for the year 1358 Fasli the plaintiff would be given a half share and that after the acceptance of the tender a deed of partnership would be executed and sanction of the Excise Department for it should be obtained; and that if such contract was entered into by the parties, was it lawful? 3. Whether on account for defendants failure to carry out the alleged contract of 15/06/1948, the plaintiff was put to a loss of Rs. 50,000, and he is entitled to recover the same. 4. Whether an action for acoorespondingoined to a suit for damages? 5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

( 5 ) AFTER recording the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Judge found on issue No. 1 that the plaintiffs suit is not maintainable. On second part of issue No. 2, he found that the contract entered into between the parties is unlawful. In regard to issue No. 3, his finding is that on account of the defendants failure to carry out the alleged contract of 15/06/1948, the plaintiff was not put to a loss of Rs. 50,000 and as such he is not entitled to recover the same from the defendant. On issue No. 4, he held that in an action for damages accounts cannot be asked for. Consequently, he dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs.

( 6 ) IN this appeal by the plaintiff, the principal contention of Mr. Jalil Ahmed, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, is that what was agreed to between the parties on 15/06/1948 was that they would enter into a partnership at