ARUN KUMAR SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal u/Sec.96 of CPC is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge Gangapur City in Civil Suit no.70/2012.

(2.) The brief facts noticed are that the appellant claims that he had purchased Lottery Ticket bearing No. B211299 of 80th draw of State Lotteries to be opened on 25.10.1981 but due to stay of this Court, it was not opened on that day. That he had shown the said ticket to 5 close relatives/friends and all of them noted the ticket number. Since the draw was not made on 25.10.1981, he kept the original Lottery Ticket in his documents. The draw was lateron opened on 10.01982 and after noticing the newspaper of Navbharat Times, he noticed that ticket No. B211299 won first price of Rs. 55,00,000/- of 80th draw of State Lotteries. On searching the aforesaid ticket, the appellant did not find the same and he immediately wrote to the respondent No. 3 about non traceability/theft of the original ticket and thereafter, he lodged an FIR on 10.03.1982 in Police Station, Gangapur City informing the respondent No. 3 by telegram about loss of the original lottery ticket. The appellant accordingly filed a claim for granting him the amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- of the Lottery and since the respondent No.3 tried to evade, therefore, he filed a writ petition which was lateron dismissed and it has also been noticed in the impugned order that Special Appeal Writ (SAW) was filed before this Court, however the same was withdrawn lateron. The Trial Court framed as many as 9 issues and recorded evidence of 5 witnesses on behalf of the appellant and in support of the claim, he also produced 15 documents and on behalf of the respondent one Mr. Giraj Prasad Meena appeared and his statements were recorded.

(3.) The Trial Court after noticing the evidence and documents primarily came to the conclusion that even the appellant has not produced the original ticket or any receipt of purchase of the aforesaid ticket from the vendor/Hawker or any evidence from Veenu Lottery or its agents and it was merely a version though other witnesses may support the claim but was not tenable and accordingly by the impugned order rejected the claim of the appellant and dismissed the suit.