IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.271 of 2007 ----------- Kanhaiya Singh, son of late Bhagirath Singh, resident of village Dibhiyan, P.S. Dibhiyan, P.S. Karghar, District Rohtas. … Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant versus Vijay Prakash Singh, son of late Ram Ashish Singh, resident of village New G.T. Road Mohan Bigha, Dehri, P.O. & P.S. Dehri, District Rohtas at present village + P.S. Dibhiyan, P.S. Kargahar, District Rohtas. …Defendant-Respondent-Respondent ---------- For the appellant : M/s Aditya Narayan Singh No.1, Dewendra Narayan Singh & Rakesh Kumar, Advocates. For the respondent : None. ------- 07/ 20.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the sole appellant and learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 210 of 1994, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant for rendering of accounts with regard to his partnership business. The said suit was dismissed on contest by Munsif, Biharsharif vide his judgment and decree dated 04.04.2000. 4. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the sole plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal No. 35 of 2000, but the said title appeal was also dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-II, Rohtas at Sasaram, vide his judgment and decree dated 27.09.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below, the instant 2 second appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below on the basis of the specific provisions of section 6 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter called `Partnership Act’), claiming that section 69 of the Partnership Act would not be attracted in the instant case and also relying on section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ( hereinafter called `Contract Act’) with respect to obligation of a person, who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void. 6. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the courts below, it is quite apparent that the courts below have very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties and, thereafter, have come to the conclusion that Ext. 5 of the plaintiff is the terms of compromise, according to which it was said that the firm `Prakash Fuel Centre’ was the sole proprietary firm of defendant Vijay Prakash Singh, whereas, the plaintiff had got no claim over the said firm and document relating to partnership firm, if any, stood cancelled. It was also found from the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 14 that the negotiation to enter into the partnership was finalized in December,1992 and Ext.K,which is a letter of Hindustan Petroleum appointing the defendant as its dealer, also clearly shows that the application for dealership was made by the defendant prior to 08.01.1989, whereafter, Ext. D, the agreement for dealership firm 3 clearly proved that it was decided that the Corporation would not recognize any partnership subsequent to the date of application. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances. Ext. 4, the Ekrarnama dated 14.05.1993 and the agreement of partnership dated 17.03.1994 (Ext. 1) could not be held to be tenable and could not be allowed to continue as it would defeat the specific provision of law as well as the agreement. Apart from that, the provisions of the Petroleum Act were bound to be defeated by the said documents of the plaintiff, which cannot be legally allowed. Furthermore since the object of the said agreement was to defeat the specific provisions of law, it was clearly unlawful and void under the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Act. 8. So far reliance of the appellant on section 65 of the Contract Act is concerned, the court of appeal below after considering the facts of the case and provisions of law has specifically held that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for relief of money decree for compensation with respect to the advantage taken by the parties on the basis of the illegal agreement. 9. So far the appellant’s reliance upon section 6 of the Partnership Act is concerned, the said provision does not come to the help of the appellant in view of the definition of partnership given in section 4 thereof and the effect of non-registration will take its account in view of section 69 of the Partnership Act. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of 4 the courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )