Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. This case is covered by the decision in Ismalji Yusufalli v. Raghunath Lachiram (1909) 33. Bom. 636 in which the facts were similar to the facts in this case. The licensee Yusufalli, who held his lease to certain salt pans on condition that he should not sub-let without the written permission of the Collector, sub-let them to the respondents without getting such permission. Then Yusufalli having died, his son obtained a fresh license from Government. The respondent obtained a fresh sub-lease on the same terms as those contained in the sub-lease obtained from Yusufalli, but no permission had been obtained from the Collector. It was urged in second appeal that the appellant manufactured salt not only under the sub-lease but also under the power-of-attorney by the appellant. The Court held that there was no evidence in support of that.
2. Chandavarkar, Acting C.J., said at page 648: 'The real object and necessary effect of the agreement between the appellant and the respondent was to enable the latter to manufacture salt without a license in the guise of a sub-lease, although that was forbidden by law and by the terms of the license.' Mr. Justice Heaton said: 'The question, therefore, is whether the object of the agreement is forbidden by law within the meaning of Section 25 of the Contract Act. It seems to me that it is, for the object was to enable the plaintiff to manufacture salt without a license, and the law says that no salt shall be manufactured otherwise than by the authority of a license granted by the Collector.'
3. In this case it had also been urged in the trial Court that the appellants were really servants of the licensee and agreed as such servants to work the salt pans. But considering the terms of the agreement, it is perfectly obvious, although the term 'service bond' is used in the sub-lease, that the appellants in consideration of certain sum paid agreed to work the salt pan for the manufacture of salt for a particular period and to do all that was required for the purposes of manufacture. There is nothing, therefore, in the nature of an agreement between master and servant which might save the appellants from having their suit dismissed. I think, therefore, that we are bound by the decision in Ismalji Yusfalli v. Uaghunath Lachiram (1909) 33 Bom. 636 and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
4. I agree. I desire to add that apart from the decision in Ismalji Yusufalli v. Raghunath Lachiram (1909) 33 Bom. 636 I should have found it difficult to hold that a breach of the condition of the license as to the sub-letting in so far as the permission of the Collector in writing was not obtained would necessarily mean that the object of the provisions of the Salt Act was defeated thereby. However, there is a clear decision of this Court on the point and it is binding on. us. On this ground the appeal must be dismissed with costs.