MANILAL DHARAMSI Vs. ALLIBHAI CHAGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference from the Presidency Small Cause Courts, Bombay, under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, The question referred to us is: "Are Teji Mandi contracts to be held as being wagers on account of their apparent nature and characteristics alone without any other proof of the intentions of the contracting parties or is evidence necessary to prove that such contracts were intended to be wagers?"

(2.) It appears from the terms of the reference that the learned Judge has felt some doubt on the point in view of the practice that is stated to be prevalent in the Presidency Small Cause Courts of treating such contracts as wagers without any farther proof that they are wagers. The learned Judge was of opinion that the practice was not justified and that in every case of such contracts as in every other case it must be proved whether the contracts were in the nature of wagers, that is, whether the common intention of the contracting parties at the time of the contract was to deal only in differences and under no circumstances to call for or give delivery.

(3.) In the first place, I desire to point out that this is hardly a question of law, or usage having the force of law, and I am not sure whether the reference could have been made. It was not only open to the Judge, but I think it was his duty, to decide, according to his view of the evidence in the particular case before him giving such weight as he might have thought proper to the practice referred to as obtaining in that Court.