RADHESHYAM RAMJILAL Vs. SITARAM NARAYANPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Baloda Bazar, in favour of Sitaram against Radhesbyam, for the recovery of Rs. 200.

(2.) THE petitioner borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 50 on October 26, 1960, and another sum of Rs. 150 on February 12, 1960, for which he executed two documents (Exs. P-1 and P-2) on which this suit was based. Execution of both the documents and the loans were admitted by the defendant. THE suit was resisted on the ground that the loans had extinguished. THEre was betting between the parties on or about September 19, 1961, in which the plaintiff lost and the said loans were satisfied by a notional payment of the stake of Rs. 200. THE bet was whether the railway station Pandurti comes before or after the railway station Ankapali while travelling from Raipur via Waltai. According to the defendant, Pandurti was before Ankapali, while the plaintiff thought otherwise. A stake of Rs. 200 was fixed. Both the parties then went to the Station Master of Bhatapara Railway Station, who by reference to the official record decided the dispute in favour of the defendant. THE parties came back from the railway station and the plaintiff then declared that he would adjust the amount of stake in full satisfaction of the debts due to him. THEse facts have been found proved by the trial Judge and there is nothing to disturb his finding.

(3.) THE real contention advanced for the defendant is that since a wagering is void but not illegal and since the defendant, in this case, has not come to the Court seeking realization of the stake and he only pleads repayment and challenges a right to return of the stake amount already paid by "adjustment", his defence that there are no loans subsisting cannot be thrown out on the ground of wagering. It is true that betting is not illegal, but the law is un-willing to assist enforcement of the obligation arising out of it. See, for instance, Gujjer Nauth Sew Bux v. Ramdayal I L R 9 Cal. 791.; and Waller Mitchel v. A. K. Tennent AIR 1925 Cal. 1007.. It is undoubted law that a suit is not maintainable for the recovery of the stake if the loser of the bet does not pay it to the winner. It is then to be examined whether the loser having paid to the winner the lost bet can bring an action for its return. This question too presents no difficulty. Section 65 of the Contract Act doe not come to his aid, because the contract was void ab initio; it does not subsequently become void nor is subsequently discovered to be void. It is held in Chhavga Mal v. Sheo Prasad AIR 1920 All. 167. , that money deposited as security in respect Satta transactions cannot be recovered under section 65 as that section has no application to such transactions. A suit to recover such a deposit cannot be maintained. See also Firm Sagarmal v. Bishambar Sahai AIR 1947 All. 14 (15-16)..