Natla Bapiraju vs Puram Achuta Rajaju and Another

On the second occasion on which this case came before the appellate Court, the parties agreed that an account should be taken by a

Commissioner upon the result of which a decree should be made.

When the case came again on appeal from the District Munsif''s decree after the account was taken, an objection was raised that under the

license granted to the defendants, the contract of partnership between them and the plaintiff was illegal. The Subordinate Judge sustained this

objection and dismissed the suit. The license is not on record and it is impossible for us to say that the partnership contravenes any condition

therein set forth: but it is now contended that'' apart from the license, the partnership is illegal as being prohibited by the Abkari Act, and Section

13 is referred to. We do not think that Section 13 prohibits a person who has no license from holding an interest in the manufacture or vend of

liquor jointly with a licensed manufacturer or vendor, and the authority relied on.--Marudamuthu Pillai v. Rangasami Mooppan ILR (1901) Mad.

401--does not compel us to hold that this is the effect of the section. In that case it was held that the conditions of the license were in accordance

with the policy of the Act but not that the Act itself prohibits a partnership between a licensed vendor and another. The decision in S. A. No. 870

of 1906 evidently proceeded on the view which we take; it was there held that a partnership entered into before the provision in the conditions of a

license of a legal prohibition against transfer and sub-letting, could not be held to be an illegal partnership. In this case too the partnership was

commenced before the date on which this prohibition in such license was legally promulgated by the Commissioner of the Abkari Revenue, but not

having the license before us, it is unnecessary for us to consider how that would affect the matter if at all.

We must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the A.S. Nos. 417 and 418 for disposal on the merits in pursuance of the

agreement between the parties. The costs will abide the results.

The memorandum of objections is not pressed and is dismissed with costs.