The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of agreements that are opposed to public policy, and the consequences of failing to comply with the conditions required by the revenue authorities for the issue of licences.

Leach, C.J.

1. The appellant sued on the original side of this Court for a declaration that a partnership between him and the defendant was dissolved on 80th September 1988 and for an order directing that the accounts of the partnership be taken from 1st October 1937 to 30th September 1988. No oral evidence was given as the parties had agreed that the action should be tried on the correspondence and certain other documents. It is common ground that the partnership commenced before 23rd August 1937. The record does not disclose the exact date of the agreement; but this is not material. The partnership was formed for the purpose of acquiring licences for the carrying on of a retail business in toddy in shops in the City of Madras. Licences were obtained, but they were only issued in the name of the plaintiff. The defence was that as the licences stood in the name of the plaintiff alone, the partnership was illegal and therefore the suit was not maintainable. This plea was accepted by Krishnaswami Ayyangar J., who tried the action, and consequently he non-suited the plaintiff who has appealed. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent died and his legal representatives have been made parties in his place. The situation disclosed is an unusual one and it is necessary to set out the course of events. For the year commencing 1st October 1937, the Collector called for tenders in respect of toddy shops in Madras and on 23rd August 1937 the plaintiff submitted a tender on behalf of the partnership, but in his own name. The plaintiff had already informed the Secretary of the Board of Revenue of the partnership and it may be taken that the revenue authorities were fully aware of the arrangement at all material times. On 28th August 1937 the tender was withdrawn but two days later the letter of withdrawal was withdrawn. On 3lst August the tender was accepted in respect of 14 toddy shops, but subsequently two other shops were included. On 2nd September formal notice of the partnership was given by the plaintiff in a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Excise. The plaintiff added that the shops would remain in his name. The defendant took exception to the issue of the licences to the plaintiff alone and consequently on 11th September the plaintiff wrote to the Collector asking that the licences for the shops should be issued in the joint names of "J. D. Italia and D. Cawasji", or in the name of "J. D. Italia and Co.", whichever the Collector might think fit. On 24th September pending the decision on the question of the issue of the licences in the joint names, the Collector issued a temporary licence in the name of the plaintiff. On 20th October the plaintiff again wrote asking that the licences be issued in the joint names of himself and the defendant. It was not until 10th March 1988 that the Collector replied, and the reply was to the effect that the request could not be granted. As the plaintiff had made a full disclosure of the position before his tender was accepted, he naturally asked for the reconsideration of this decision. On 11th April the Collector wrote inquiring whether the plaintiff was prepared to register a company Italia and Co., with himself and Mr. D. Cawasji as partners and with himself authorised to act in the name of the company.

Although he used the word "company" the Collector was obviously inquiring whether the plaintiff was prepared to register the partnership under the Partnership Act. The plaintiff had to communicate with the defendant, who was resident in Bombay, and this occasioned delay. On 30th April the Collector called for a reply within one week and stated that otherwise the licences would be issued in the plaintiffs name only. The plaintiff asked for time to reply until 1st June, but this was not granted. On 18th May the Collector wrote to the plaintiff informing him that the licences of the 16 toddy shops would be issued in his name only and that he should produce security to the extent