DADU KHUSHIRAM Vs. HORILAL KASIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellant, Dadu Khushiram, sued the defendant-non applicant, Horilal Kasira, in the Court of small Causes, Seoni, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 146-4-0 said to have been borrowed by the latter. The defence was that the loan was, in reality, taken by one Lakhmichand in the defendant's presence and that it had been borrowed by Lakhmichand for a gambling purpose, The lower Court found that the loan had actually been taken for a gambling purpose by the defendant, but it dismissed the suit as it was of opinion that the consideration was illegal under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.

(2.) IT is urged on behalf of the applicant that the findings of the Subordinate Judge go beyond the pleadings on record and that, in view of the defendant's denial of having taken the loan at all as well as of the lower Court's finding to the contrary, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. After perusing the evidence and statements on record, I entertain not the slightest doubt but that the defendant, on the day he took the loan, was engaged in gambling and that the plaintiff knew perfectly well that the loan was taken during play for the purpose of carrying on the latter.

(3.) IN the circumstances of the case, however, I do not think the plaintiff-applicant is entitled to any interest and I am further of opinion that the parties should bear their own costs in both Courts. I, therefore, reverse the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court and instead give a decree for Rs. 138 in favour of the plaintiff-applicant.