Prospective operation of anti-wagering law left existing contracts intact; lawful bidding through agents was not fraud between parties.

A subsequent statute prohibiting wagers was construed prospectively, so it did not invalidate existing wagering contracts or accrued rights in the absence of clear retrospective language. The contracts were not shown to be void under Hindu law. The plaintiffs' use of lawful bidding and agents to influence price, as contemplated by the parties when the wagers were made, was not treated as fraud, illegal conspiracy, puffing, forestalling, or ingrossing, and did not defeat recovery between the contracting parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the wagering contracts were avoided by the subsequent enactment prohibiting wagers; (ii) whether the contracts were void under Hindu law; (iii) whether the plaintiffs' conduct in bidding and employing agents to raise the price amounted to fraud or illegality so as to defeat recovery.

Issue (i): Whether the wagering contracts were avoided by the subsequent enactment prohibiting wagers.

Analysis: The enactment against wagers was held to be prospective in operation and not intended to disturb existing rights or actions already commenced. In the absence of words showing a contrary intention, a statute is not construed as destroying accrued contractual rights.

Conclusion: The subsequent wagering statute did not avoid the existing contracts.

Issue (ii): Whether the contracts were void under Hindu law.

Analysis: The authorities cited did not establish that such contracts were unlawful under Hindu law, and the objection had not been raised below. The Court declined to hold the contracts illegal on that basis.

Conclusion: The contracts were not shown to be void under Hindu law.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiffs' conduct in bidding and employing agents to raise the price amounted to fraud or illegality so as to defeat recovery.

Analysis: The decisive question was the parties' mutual understanding when the wagers were made. On the evidence, the parties contemplated that each side might enter the market as a speculator and use lawful means, including bidding and agents, to affect the price. Such conduct was not a fraud on the defendants, nor was it treated as an illegal conspiracy, puffing, forestalling, or ingrossing. The Court further distinguished real bidding from sham bidding and rejected the argument that the plaintiffs could not recover because of the manner in which the price was influenced.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs' conduct did not avoid the contracts or defeat their right to recover.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantive objections and the decree in favour of the respondents was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent statute is not construed as retrospectively invalidating existing wagering contracts absent clear words, and where the parties contemplated lawful market bidding by either side, such bidding and use of agents does not constitute fraud or illegality as between the contracting parties.

---