SHINGHAL, J.—These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of District Judge, Bhilwara, dated Dec, 23, 1961, and will be disposed of together.

2. Defendant Sunder Singh held a permit for plying a bus on the Shahpura-Bhilwara route, but he was apprehensive that the permit might be cancelled because be could not run the bus for some time. He thought it necessary to secure another bus for his permit and obtained a vehicle for that purpose from the New Laxmi Finance Company, Ajmer, for Rs. 21,000-/, on hire-purchase. The New Laxmi Finance Company asked for security for the arrangement, and it was furnished by the plaintiffs father Gyan Singh at the instance of the plaintiff and the defendant. It was however realised that some more expenditure would have to be incurred in building the body, insuring the vehicle and in meeting the registration and other charges which Sunder Singh was unable to finance. He therefore entered into agreement Ex. 1 dated December 28, 1958 for a partnership with plaintiff Inderjit Singh, Under that agreement, Sunder Singh retained a three-fourth share for himself in the vehicle and the permit and decided to give the remaining one-fourth share to Inderjit Singh. Vehicle No. RJL 218 was accordingly run on the Shahpura-Bhilwara route from January, 1959 on the basis of that agreement. The plaintiff pleaded that he spent more than his share on the vehicle but that the defendant did not allow him to participate in the joint management after a period of one month, and did not give him an account of the profit or loss in the business. He therefore alleged that as the defendant had committed a breach of the terms of the partnership, it had become impossible to carry it on any further. He prayed for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts or, in the alternative, for refund of Rs. 6,900/- on account of the money spent by him, and its interest.

3. Defendant Sunder Singh admitted the execution of the deed of partnership (Ex. 1) dated December 28, 1958, but pleaded that it was not acted upon because of its illegality. He also pleaded that bus No. RJL 218 was obtained by him on hire-purchase basis on the security of the plaintiffs father Gyan Singh, but that the plaintiff did not contribute to the purchase. He pleaded that the plaintiff had nothing to do with its ownership, management or accounts and claimed that it was his exclusive property and was running on the basis of his permit. Further, the defendant denied that the plaintiff had made any payment to him for the running of the bus, or for any other purpose, and pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the money spent by him on account of the partnership business. In his additional pleas, he specifically pleaded that the partnership agreement was illegal because it contravened the provisions of sec, 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He gave an account of the money spent by the plaintiff and urged that the plaintiff had spent a much smaller sum in connection with the partnership and was not entitled to recover it because the object and consideration of the partnership agreement were illegal. In the alternative, he pleaded that the partnership was terminated by a mutual agreement between the parties on October 3, 1959. The plaintiff filed a replication, but confined it to the question of the extent of his investment in the partnership business and did not say anything about the plea of illegality of the agreement.

4. A number of issues were framed covering the various points in controversy. Issue No. 8 related to the question whether sec. 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act was an impediment in the claim of the plaintiff because of the fact that the permit was only in the name of the defendant. Issue No. 9 specifically dealt with the question whether the partnership agreement was void.

5. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 3,600/- on account of principal and Rs. 218/8/- by way of interest. Both the parties preferred appeals

Click Here to Read the rest of this document