G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendants' second appeal in which the principal point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was an agreement to ply truck No RJL 1507 in partnership by the parties, even though the truck was not owned by them nor the premises was owned by them. According to the appellant, therefore, the agreement was invalid, and this principle has been laid down in 1969 RLW 377.
(2.) IN my opinion the submission is fallacious. IN the instant case there is no analogy of the facts mentioned in 1969 RLW 377 case where the suit was for accounts and dissolution of partnership firm which according to the facts of that case was illegal and against public policy. In the present case the truck has been plied by both the parties and later on after dissolution of partnership and amount has been found due in defendant and the plaintiff has been made entitled to recover it from the defendant. This agreement in my opinion cannot be said to be against public policy and it is irrelevant whether the formation of the partnership was valid or in valid and whether the earlier agreement would be enforced or not. Even otherwise according to the principles laid down in Mangt Lal Vs. Ghishu Khan's case (1) the latest position of law of this court is that even when partnership between plaintiff and defendant was for the purpose of plying a truck purchased by the plaintiff and defendant jointly and obtaining the permission in the name of one of the partners then also it was held that it is not violative of any provisions of the Contract Act being against the public policy. Neither section 55 clause (l) makes it invalid nor section 23 is attracted. In the case the law has been discussed in details about such partnership regarding the permission of Motor Vehicles. The decision of 1969 RLW 377 has also been considered in para No. 15 and noticed. It may be pointed out that in Mangi Lal Vs. Ghishu Khan (supra) earlier judgment of this court in 1969 RLW 377 was noticed and distinguished and further watered down in para 11. In para 11 it has been laid down that in Inderjeet Singh's case Justice Singhal relied upon the judgment of A. V. Varadarajulu Naidu's case, which has been overruled in M/s Dayabhais Co. 's case. In view of the above I am of the opinion that so far as the present case is concerned, since the suit is based on an agreement and settlement in which expressly it has been mentioned that the defendant has to pay this amount to plaintiff, this agreement cannot be held to be invalid. Consequently no error of law much less any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. . ;