SIR DORABJI JAMSETJI TATA, Vs. EDWARD FLANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Notice of motion for an injunction and order in terms of prayers (c) and (e) of the plaint. Those prayers are: (c) that the first and second defendants (who represent the Western India Turf Club) may be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from withdrawing ticket No. 15315 from the lottery and (e) that pending the decision of this suit the first and second defendants may be restrained by an order and injunction, of this Court from paying the amount of any prize drawn by the ticket No. 15315 or any ticket substituted in place thereof to the third defendant.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts are these: The plaintiff purchased through the admitted agents of the defendant Club a ticket bearing the number 15315. Those agents were Messrs. Thomas Cook & Son of Bombay. They had the disposal of this ticket and they gave a receipt to the plaintiff for the Rs. 10 paid in respect of that particular ticket bearing that particular number. But it appears that at that moment the book containing the ticket had not been sold down to that number and so Messrs. Thomas Cook & Son agreed actually to hand over the ticket itself when they got to the particular number in the book. Messrs. Thomas Cook & Son are not before me but they seem by some mistake to have sent the ticket in question to another part of India where it was eventually issued and delivered by another branch of theirs to the third defendant.

(3.) Correspondence took place between the plaintiff and Messrs. Thomas Cook & Son, and it appears from that correspondence or from other parts of the evidence that some offer was made by or on behalf of the plaintiff to the third defendant for this ticket. There was a counter-offer made by the third defendant which was refused: so there would appear to be some value attached to this particular ticket by the plaintiff and the third defendant over and above its face value. Then the plaintiff being unable to obtain the ticket he thought he had bought, applied to the Turf Club, and the decision the Turf Club came to was this. They decided to withdraw this ticket 15315 altogether, to return the plaintiff s money paid in respect of that ticket and to issue a new ticket 15315 A to the third defendant. They wrote to the third defendant at the same time asking for his approval, which, I understands was subsequently given and telling him that if ticket No. 15315 A was successful in the lottery, the amount thereof would be paid to the third defendant. Thereupon the plaintiff, brought this action.