Ramesam, J.

1. The facts of the case have been stated by my learned brother whose judgment I had the advantage of perusing and they need not be repeated. I will only observe that the suit is not between the subscribers inter se, or by a subscriber against the stake-holder. The suit chit-fund is a partnership consisting of the plaintiff and defendant, and the object of the suit is to recover the monies due to the plaintiff on the closing of the partnership. Unless the object of the main transaction is to commit an offence, made punishable by the Indian Penal Code, there can be no objection to enforcing the terms of a contract of this kind, which is collateral to another transaction, even when the main transaction itself is merely void (as where it amounts to a wager) and cannot be enforced : See Shibo Mal v. Lachman Das (1901) 23 All. 165, Bhola Nath v. Mul Chand (1903) 25 All. 639, Chekka Venkatasawmi v. Gaijla Naghabhushanam (1904) 14 M.L.J. 236, which are cases of principal and agent. Cases of partnership are illustrated by Sharp v. Taylor (1849) 2 Ph. 801 (a case of fraud on the American Law and on the English Navigation Laws), Johnson v. Lansley (1852) 12 C.B. 469, Beest