Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) (sic) has been filed against an order (sic) Plaintiff Din Dayal had filed (sic) recovery of Rs. 10,000/ - from decree (sic) Roop Chand or from any (sic) ant who may be liable. The (sic) framed four issues, which are as follows: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is a co -sharer in the disputed bus? If so, what is his share?
(2.) WHETHER the Plaintiff is entitled to claim his share of profits? If so, what and against which of the Defendants? Whether the suit is sot maintainable as alleged in para 26 of the written statement and para. 2 of the Additional W.S. ?
(3.) PLAINTIFF 's relief ? The trial court decided the first issue in favour of the Plaintiff and found that Sit he Plaintiff was a co -sharer in the bus and the permit to the extent of one -fourth share Issue No. 3 was decided against the Plaintiff and hints held that the suit was not maintainable. Issues 2 and 4 were not decided in view of the decision on issue No. 3. 2. Plaintiff went up in appeal and the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court on issue No. 3. It held that the suit) was maintainable and was not barred by Section 59(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On that finding it reminded the case to the trial court for decision of the remaining issues. Against that order the present appeal has been filed by the Defendants. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the writ was barred by Section 59(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Before the applicability of the section can be considered, the nature of the suit has to be determined. A reading of the agreement entered into between the parties shows that the parties had entered into an agreement about co sharing in the business. Although the agreement is about owning a share in the motor bus as well as in the permit, the permit as such cannot be co shared. It is only the profits that may follow on the basis of the permit which may be co shared. The appellate court impliedly found that the transaction was partnership between a permit holder and a vehicle owner for carrying on the business. 4. Section 59(1) of the Act provides that a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another (sic) with the permission of the (sic) which granted (sic) further enjoins that (sic) permission (sic) person to(sic) transferred to use it (sic) by the permit (sic) Section 59(1) therefore (sic) a right to use the (sic) and (sic) manner authorised by the (sic) only means that so far as the (sic) Vehicles Act is concerned, the (sic) will not be deemed to be a transfer for the purposes of the Act. It does not bar the transfer of motor vehicles, but only bars the conferment on the transferee a right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. Section 59(1) does not prohibit the co -sharing in the business or the profits earned by a motor vehicle running under a particular permit. The right to carry on business with a motor vehicle, for which a permit has been issued under the Motor Vehicles Act is entirely different from exercising the rights under the permit. A number of persons may own a vehicle and only one may have a permit under the Act to run it. The agreement to co -share the profits of that business with not be deemed to be prohibited by Section 59(1) of the Act.;