JUDGMENT A.H. Khan, J. These second appeals are filed under section 525 of the Gwalior Civil Procedure Code in which questions of fact as well as of law have been raised. Plaintiff Shripal filed a suit against defendant Pohapsingh alleging that on 5-12-1947 the defendant executed a registered agreement of partnership in his favour; that the defendant had obtained a theka (a licence) to purchase and sell Ganja, Bhang and Opium from the Customs Department, Gwalior State. It was in respect of this licence that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a partnership, the share in the business and liability for profit and loss being half and half. A sum of Rs. 3,300 was given to the defendant in this connection. It was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff will keep the accounts and that the defendant will give an application to Customs and Excise Department and get the plaintiff appointed as his agent for the purpose of obtaining and selling the commodities covered by the licence. But the defendant never took any steps to get the plaintiff appointed as an agent and that in consequence he never became a partner in this business. This suit is filed for the recovery of Rs. 3,300 as principal and Rs. 239 as interest at the rate of twelve annas per cent. In all the suit was for the recovery of Rs. 3,539. In his written statement, the defendant admitted that he had obtained a licence from the Customs and Excise Department. He also admitted the execution of the deed of partnership and receiving the sum of Rs. 3,300. He, however, stated that the plaintiff because of his pre-occupation kept the accounts for some time, and when he saw that loss was being incurred, he quarreled with defendant's brother, Pritamsingh and brought this suit for the recovery of the amount which the plaintiff had invested in this business. It was further alleged in the written statement that as a matter of fact the total loss in this business amounted to Rs. 10,637, out of which the defendant is responsible for paying Rs. 5,318-13-0 and, the defendant preferred a counter-claim against the plaintiff for the recovery of half the loss sustained in the business. The trial Court held that parties were partners and that the plaintiff should share the loss according to the terms of the deed. 10,637, out of which the defendant is responsible for paying Rs. 5,318-13-0 and, the defendant preferred a counter-claim against the plaintiff for the recovery of half the loss sustained in the business. The trial Court held that parties were partners and that the plaintiff should share the loss according to the terms of the deed. The Court disposed of the suit and the counter-claim by giving a decree of Rs. 520-10-0 in favour of the plaintiff. Against this decision both the parties filed appeals before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhind. The defendant's appeal was dismissed and allowing the plaintiff's appeal, the first appellate Court enhanced the decretal amount to a sum of Rs. 1,024-10-0. Aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate Court, both the parties have filed cross appeals in this Court. The plaintiff's appeal is numbered as Second Appeal No. 4 of 1957, and, the main contention raised in it is that because the defendant did not take any steps to have the plaintiff recognised as his agent by the Department, the contract was discharged and frustrated and according to section 65 of the Contract Act, the defendant is bound to restore the amount which he had taken from the plaintiff. The defendant's appeal is numbered as Second Appeal No. 28 of 1957 and it is urged that both the Courts below have arrived at a wrong conclusion about the loss incurred in the business, and, that the decree of the lower Court against him be set aside with costs. I shall first decide the appeal filed by the plaintiff, i.e. No. 4 of 1957. The fact which is significant in this case is that the main contention of the plaintiff and specially alleged in the plaint was that because one of the important conditions of the agreement, namely, the condition relating to the taking of steps to get him recognised as defendant's agent by the Customs, Department, was not observed by the defendant, the contract was frustrated. But the defendant in his written statement by-passed this allegation altogether. I, however, find that in spite of this, because of Issue No. 3, both the parties have led evidence on the point. But the defendant in his written statement by-passed this allegation altogether. I, however, find that in spite of this, because of Issue No. 3, both the parties have led evidence on the point. I shall first consider whether according to the agreement any steps were taken by the defendant to get the plaintiff recognised by the Customs Department, and later on, I shall consider the effect of the breach of this term. Both the parties have led evidence on this point. The defendant has examined one Sitaram Singh and himself on the point. Sitaram Singh has said that first of all the plaintiff had been appointed the agent, but when the Superintendent, Customs, refused to appoint him as an agent, then the witness was appointed as the agent. But even the defendant does not say that at any time the plaintiff was made an agent. He has also stated that the accounts that were produced in this case were in his handwriting and that in the account books plaintiff Shripal has not been shown as a partner. The defendant, Pohapsingh, in his evidence has said that an application was given to the Superintendent about the appointment of the plaintiff as his agent and that it was rejected by the Superintendent. But his cross-examination shows that his statement in examination-in-chief is not correct. In this cross-examination at one place he said that the application that he had submitted to the Superintendent, Customs for appointment of Shripal as his agent was returned to Shripal (plaintiff) which Shripal had torn to pieces. Now it is difficult to understand how the application which the defendant had given was returned to the plaintiff. Having regard to the usual course of official business, the application could have been rejected and kept in official file. Any way this witness, further on says that the Superintendent had returned the application to the defendant without recording any order on it. Apart from the conflict in the two statements, it is difficult to understand how the Superintendent returned the application without recording any order. To make confusion worse confounded, the defendant has further stated that the application is with the clerk. In fact the defendant ought to have examined the Superintendent to prove that he took steps to get the defendant appointed. To make confusion worse confounded, the defendant has further stated that the application is with the clerk. In fact the defendant ought to have examined the Superintendent to prove that he took steps to get the defendant appointed. I am afraid that the evidence of Sitaram Singh and of the defendant himself does not incline me to hold that the defendant ever took any steps to secure the recognition of the plaintiff as his agent by the Customs Department. In fact, I am inclined to hold on the testimony of the defendant's witness, Sitaram Singh that the defendant never wanted to treat the plaintiff as his partner because Sitaram Singh who wrote the account book has in very clear terms stated that in the account book, it is not written that Shripal is a partner. The object of this important term of the agreement is obvious. It was provided in the agreement that the plaintiff would keep the accounts. And in order to enable him to control the business effectively, it was most necessary that he should have been appointed the agent for the purchase and sale of the licensed commodities. I hold that the defendant failed to take steps to get the plaintiff recognised as his agent by the Customs Department and therefore the contract stands frustrated and in all fairness, the plaintiff is entitled to get the amount which he had early invested in the business. It was a material part of the agreement of partnership and since the defendant did not take any steps to fulfil the condition, the agreement must be deemed to have become void and under section 65 of the Contract Act, the defendant is bound to restore the advantage he had derived under the agreement. The proposition is so obvious that it is not necessary to quote any authority in support of it. I shall, however, refer to a recent decision reported in Krishna Onkar Das Goyanka v. Suryadas Goyanka 1958 MPLJ 370 in which a Division Bench held that where a vendor agrees to sell land which could not be transferred without the sanction of the Revenue authorities, the vendor who does not diligently take steps to obtain the sanction commits breach of the contract and the earnest money received by the vendor is returnable. There is a prayer that the plaintiff is entitled to the return of the money with interest. There is a prayer that the plaintiff is entitled to the return of the money with interest. Having regard to the circumstances of the case interest by way of damages can be allowed and is allowed at the rate of 6 per cent, from the date of the suit. In view of the conclusion that I have arrived at in the appeal of the plaintiff, it is unnecessary to consider the appeal of the defendant which is in main for the recovery of loss incurred in the business. If the contract of partnership became discharged, as I have held above, then there was no partnership and any loss that may have been borne by the defendant cannot be shared by the plaintiff. In result, I dismiss the appeal filed by the defendant and allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff direct that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 3,300 together with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the recovery of the amount. The plaintiff shall get costs throughout. Appeal dismissed