The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of a sub-partnership agreement under the Partnership Act and relevant statutory provisions, as well as the interpretation of such agreements in light of previous legal precedents.

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for settlement of accounts and for recovery of the plaintiffs one-fifth share. The appellant is defendant 1. He along with defendants 5 and 6, had obtained certain lands on lease from the Government on 11th September 1918 for a period of 25 years for the purpose of manufacturing salt. Subsequently, on 17th November 1918, there was an agreement between the plaintiff in the suit and defendant 1 under which it was agreed that the plaintiff should have one-fifth share out of the one-third share which defendant 1 had in the business, and subject to the terms of the lease deed and the conditions which the Government and its officers might lay. In accordance with the said agreement defendant 1 agreed that the profits and losses will be borne in the shares as stated above. Subsequently some of the lands demised under Ex. 1 were not suitable for the purpose for which the lease was taken and hence there was a subsequent lease under Ex. 2 for the unexpired portion of the lease term, viz., for a period of 22 years. It is the plaintiffs case that this lease was only a modification of the lease of 11th September 1918 and therefore he was entitled to the benefits of the same. He therefore sued for a settlement of accounts between himself and defendant 1. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of defendant 1. Various pleas were raised of which it is necessary to state only two. One was that the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant 1 was invalid as being illegal and opposed to public policy and that the plaintiff could not enforce any rights under the agreement. The second was that the agreement was enforceable if at all only in respect of the rights under Ex. 1 and therefore no claim could be made in respect of the rights conferred under the lease deed, Ex. 2. The issues relating to these two pleas were tried as preliminary issues and. the District Munsif dismissed the suit upholding the contention of defendant 1. On appeal the learned District Judge of Kistna disallowed both the pleas, found that the agreement was valid and legal and was enforceable and that the contract must be construed to relate to the subsequent lease under Ex. 2 also. He therefore allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for disposal on the other issues. Hence this appeal.

2. The only two points for consideration are : (1) whether the agreement evidenced by Ex. A is illegal and opposed to public policy and is not enforceable and (2) whether the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the agreement even in respect of the rights conferred under Ex. 2. Before dealing with the contentions of the appellant we should bear in mind what the legal relationship between the parties is. Exhibit 1 shows that defendants 1, 5 and 6 obtained a lease from the Government in respect of certain lands with all the salt pans and brine pans in them. The lease was for 25 years and the parties were at liberty to determine the cease after giving notice which will have effect at once and six months time was allowed for the removal of the salt by the lessees. The land was to be exclusively used for the manufacture, storage and sale of salt and works connected with it. The lessees were not to erect any dwelling houses nor remove brine in unmanufactured state. The lessees were to pay the land tax, assessment and all taxes. It was further stated that the lessees shall be granted a modified excise license for manufacturing salt and they should observe the terms of such license or any statutory modifications thereof which the Government of Madras might in its discretion make. There was another provision that the lessees shall not,/except with the written consent of the lessor assign, sublet or part with the possession of the leased land or any portion thereof and shall not transfer by sale or otherwise the powers granted to them. There was also a proviso that nothing contained therein shall prevent the lessees at any time from taking any partner