TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1935 (10) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efund of his subscriptions no repayment has been made by defendants. The sum claimed is ₹ 270 which is the amount of 45 instalments paid by the first plaintiff on his two tickets. The material defence to the claim, so far as this reference is concerned, is in para 3 of the written statement, where the plea is raised that the agreement between the parties being in respect of a lottery unauthorised by Government, was for an illegal object, and was therefore unenforceable at law. 3. The lower Court held the defendants liable to refund the money. Hence the Revision Petition. The question has been referred to a Full Bench as there are decisions of this High Court on the status of Kuris which are not always easy to reconcile. 4. The first question to be decided is whether this kuri is a lottery. A lottery has been defined as the distribution of prizes by lot or chance without the use of any skill; See Arch-bold's Criminal Pleadings 27th Edn. p. 1345. In the Oxford New English Dictionary a lottery is defined as "an arrangement for the distribution of prizes by chance among persons purchasing tickets." Tickets of course are only the tokens of the chance purchased, and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly within the above mentioned definition of a lottery. 6. But it has been contended that a lottery requires that the dominant motive of the persons participating in it is to gamble; and as a corollary to this proposition it is argued that a loss to some of the parties is a necessary element of a lottery. No case has been produced to show that the definition of lottery is qualified by the motives of the participants. On the contrary, in Hall v. Me William (1901) 85 L.T. 239 where a lottery was a competition promoted by a newspaper with the object of increasing the number of its purchasers and of its circulation, Ridley, J., said: It may be that the owners of the newspaper have other objects in their minds as to what they will do and how they will benefit by the offering of these prizes; but as far as the purchaser is concerned I think he does buy with this newspaper the chance of obtaining the prize 7. Which goes to show that the question lottery or no lottery? - is not to be determined by the quality of the promoters' motive. The contention, too, that it is an element of a lottery that some of the competitors must stand to lose seems to be founded upon a misconception of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to show that it is a lottery. A lottery is not in British India unlawful in the sense that it is prohibited by law. It is only in relation to Section 294-A of the Penal Code that a lottery becomes illegal. This section makes it an offence (1) to keep any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery not authorised by Government, or (2) to publish any proposal to pay any sum on an event or contingency relating to the drawing of any ticket in such lottery. The evidence distinctly proves a publishing of the kuri regulations which contained the proposals relating to the lottery. One of the defendants says that the regulations were printed - a copy is before us - and a plaintiff's witness says that the regulations were shown to him. This constituted an offence against the second part of Section 294-A. Regarding the question whether defendants offended against the first part of the section, I think the temple would be "a place", and that it is apparent from the Regulations (Clause 9) that the defendants had a control, possibly only de facto, over the place for the purpose of drawing the lottery there. Section 294-A does not make it an offence for the owner or occup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransactions are prohibited by positive statutes, for the sake of protecting one set of men from another set of men, the one, from their situation and condition, being liable to be oppressed or imposed upon by the other, there, the parties are not in pari delicto ; and in furtherance of these statutes, the person injured, after the transaction is finished and completed, may bring his action and defeat the contract. 11. The Lottery Acts in England make it an offence to sell or deliver a lottery ticket, to keep a lottery, to keep a place for the exercise of a lottery, and to publish a lottery. Section 294-A makes it an offence to keep a place for drawing a lottery or to publish a lottery. Neither under the English Acts nor under the Penal Code is it made an offence to buy a ticket in a lottery. Can it be doubted that these enactments are aimed at the class of persons who promote lotteries, and that they are intended to protect the class of persons who are tempted to take tickets in lotteries? This was the view of the policy of the Lottery Acts taken by Stirling, J., in Barclay v. Pearson (1893) 2 Ch. D. 154 and in this view the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover their subscripti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the ground that he is not as guilty as the defendants (vide Section 84 of the Trusts Act). But as the case has been placed before this Bench because of the conflict between; The Udumalpet Nidhi, Ltd., In re (1934) 57 Mad. 844 : 67 M.L.J 445 and Shanniugha Mudali v. Kumaraswami Mudali I.L.R.(1925) 48 Mad. 661 affirmed in Narayana Aiyangar v. Vellachami Ambalam (1927) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 696 :: 1927 52 M.L.J. 687 (F.B.). and the points arising therefrom have been argued at great length before us, I have thought it right to express my opinion on some aspects of the wider question. 16. The arguments before us may be grouped under four heads: (i) what are the elements necessary to make a scheme a lottery (ii) what are the conditions to be established before persons participating in a lottery can be held guilty under Section 294-A Indian Penal Code (iii) what is the position for the purposes of the 'Criminal' law of persons who subscribe to or purchase tickets in a lottery as distinguished from that of those who organise, promote or manage the lottery (iv) what is the position for the purpose of the Civil Law of such subscribers or ticket holders in relation to the organisers, pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erlies the decision in the Wallingford v. Mutual Society (1880) L.R. 5 A.C. 685. The rule is correctly stated in para. 929 of the article on ' Gaming and Wagering' in Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. 15) that 'the substantial object of the whole scheme ' must be looked at and where the object is "the carrying on of a legitimate business, the fact that it provides for the distribution of its profits in certain events by lot" will not make it a lottery. 19. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Raghava Rao insisted that a scheme cannot amount to a lottery unless it involved the elements to be found in a 'wagering' contract and the deciding factor should be taken to be not the chance of getting a 'prize' but the chance of loss in certain contingencies. There may not be much in this antithesis but for the fact that in Shanmugha Mudali v. Kumaraswami Mudali I.L.R.(1925) 48 Mad. 661 the learned Judges laid stress on the fact that every subscriber at least got back the principal amount contributed by him and in Narayana Aiyangar v. Vellachami Ambalam I.L.R.(1927) 50 Mad. 696 : 52 M.L.J. 687 (F.B.) Ramesam, J., held that any payments out of the int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l not suffice to cover the 'prizes' and the payment of the prize is not made contingent on the earning of profits. The fact that the promoters hoped to reimburse themselves in due course from out of the interest earned will not make the payments to the subscribers who are lucky in the early drawings any the less a 'prize'. 21. I cannot help feeling that in the judgments of Ramesam and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ., in Shanmuga Mudali v. Kumaraswami Mudali I.L.R.(1925) 48 Mad. 661 and that of Ramesam, J., in Narayana Aiyangar v. Vellachami Ambalam (1927) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 696 :: 1927 52 M.L.J. 687 (F.B.) a great deal too much has been read into the observations. On this point in the Wallingford Case (1880) L.R. 5 A.C. 685 Lord Blackburn (at p. 70.5) disposed of the objection under the Lottery Acts by pointing out that 'a drawing of lots on one occasion' would not make the society illegal. Lord Watson contented himself with the remark that the appellant stated no case showing that this mutual society is a gaming or gambling society' (p. 709). Lord Hatherley said 'if this were held to be a lottery nearly every one of the societies I have referred to, namely build....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no invitation (in another place, 'standing invitation') to any member of the public to join it see Shanmuga Mudali v. Kumaraswami Mudali I.L.R.(1925) 48 Mad. 661 at p.664 and Venkataramana v. Sanyasayya (1933) 66 M.L.J. 76. In Narayana Aiyangar v. Vellachami Ambalam I.L.R.(1927) 50 Mad. 696 : 52 M.L.J. 687 (F.B.) the head note would make it appear that the decision of the Full Bench in some measure rested on the circumstance that the 'number of subscribers is determined beforehand'. This is somewhat misleading. In the order calling for a finding, the only relevant observation (on p. 700) is 'it is essential to know how it was organised and advertised and whether any one who liked could join by merely paying subscriptions'. On the return of the finding the Court only observed that no offence has been committed 'as no office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery was kept'. It is true that the expression 'keeping an office or place' implies a degree of habitualness and continuity of operations but this will be satisfied as much by a repetition of drawings as amongst a fixed number of persons as by permitting an unlimited number....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., J., in Richards v. Starck (1911) 1 k.B. 296. 24. Proceeding next to the second of the questions argued before us, I do not think it necessary or expedient to express any definite opinion, on the evidence in this case, as to whether or not the defendants are guilty of an offence under Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code. Though the interest of the moment has tempted them to plead that the case falls within Section 294-A, I am sure they would be the first to plead 'not guilty' if they were threatened with a prosecution. It is well settled that it is not sufficient for the purpose of the first part of Section 294-A that the scheme amounts to a lottery; it is further required that the person charged should "keep any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery". It has frequently been pointed out that the scope of this provision is very much more limited than that of the law in England relating to lotteries. (See the varieties of offences under the English Law referred to in Martin v. Benjamin (1907) 1 K.B. 64 and Halstmry para 934 in the Article on 'gaming and wagering' in Vol. XV). Even in India, the prohibition was wider under Act V of 1844 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....argued that as they enter into the scheme with full knowledge that according to its terms a place has been fixed for the purpose of drawing, they must be deemed to aid in the 'keeping'. I am not however sure that this is the correct view. Assuming that they aid in the lottery by subscribing thereto or taking tickets, it cannot necessarily be said that they aid in the 'keeping' of a place for the purpose. It would make no difference to them if the lots are drawn at one place on one occasion, and at another place on another occasion so as to avoid the habitual user of place as required by the section. 26. It remains to deal with the relations of the parties for the purpose of the civil law. In Veeranan Ambalam v. Ayyachi Ambalam AIR1926Mad168 Spencer, J., says: The Civil law goes further (than the Criminal law) and prevents obligations arising out of lotteries being enforced in a Court of law whether the lottery is held in an office to which the public have access or in a private place to which admission is not to be had for the mere asking 27. The meaning of this passage is not very clear. In Narayana Aiyangar v. Vellachami Ambalam I.L.R.(1927) 50 Mad. 696 : 1927 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in such cases claim the benefit of Section 65 of the Contract Act; but he is in my opinion entitled to rely on Section 84 of the Trusts Act. I am unable to agree with the view that both parties are in such cases in pari delicto. Assuming that the payment was made by the subscriber "for an illegal purpose", Section 84 of the Trusts Act contemplates three cases in which the payment may be claimed back. In the face of the terms of the section, I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar on behalf of the petitioner that the statement of the rule in Petherpermal Chetty v. Muniyandi Servai I.L.R. (1908) 35 Cal. 551 : 1908 L.R. 35 IndAp 98 : 1908 18 M.L.J. 277 (P.C.) is exhaustive. The second class contemplated by Section 84 comprises cases where the person making the payment or transfer "is not as guilty as the transferee" and is meant to reproduce a well recognised exception known to the English law see Reynell v. Sprye (1852) De G.M & G. 660 : 42 E.R. 710 As early as in Browning v. Morris (1718) 2 Cowp 790 Lord Mansfield recognised the right of the subscriber to claim a refund from the lottery office keeper, on the principle that lottery was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the plaintiff subscribed and which the defendants managed is a lottery. Most of the leading cases on lottery law start from a dictionary definition of the term 'lottery' usually that of Webster, who defines a lottery as a distribution of prizes by lot or chance; and I think it has been held consistently both in England and here that this distribution must not be entirely gratuitous. An attempt has been made to argue before us that a lottery is necessarily a type of wager and that the element of hazard and risk of loss necessarily enters therein. In a sense it is true that whenever a man purchases a chance in a lottery he risks losing the money which he has paid for that chance. But I do not think that it can be said that risk of loss necessarily enters into the contract of every person who joins a lottery. Otherwise it would be obvious that a case like that covered by Wills v. Young and Stembridge (1907) 1 K.B. 448 could not be a lottery; for in that case, the distribution of medals which supplied the place of tickets was gratuitous. The element of payment entered only to the extent that most of the holders (but not all of them) purchased copies of the newspaper in order t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it entails a loss. Whether that view be correct or not in the present case it seems to me clear that there was a distribution of prizes by lot and that this distribution was not gratuitous. It seems to me therefore to follow that the scheme now under consideration is certainly a lottery. 33. Now a lottery is not per se illegal, though if it could be shown that the lottery was in fact a series of wagering contracts as was held by Spencer, J., in Veeranan Ambalam v. Ayyachi Ambalam AIR1926Mad168 so as to fall within Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, the contract might be void. But it has not been contended by the petitioner before us that this lottery is in fact a wagering contract and we are only concerned with the question of the extent to which the parties to the lottery committed offences under Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code In dealing with this question one has necessarily to refer to the decision of the House of Lords in Walling ford v. Mutual Society (1880) 5 A.C. 685 which has given rise to a great deal of discussion. The difficulty about this case is that the consideration of the lottery question was a minor point in that case, not discussed at any length in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that the number of subscribers must ordinarily be known when the draw takes place. So that not only is it in my opinion incorrect to say there is no keeping of an office within the mischief of the first part of Section 294-A if the number of subscribers is known, but I would go so far as to say that it is almost inevitable that the number of subscribers should be known when the drawing takes place and when the offence under Section 294-A, first part, is committed. 35. The second part of this section deals with the publication of the proposals connected with "any such lottery". It seems to me that the words "such lottery" must only refer to a lottery not authorised by the Government and that publication would be complete by the circulation of printed prospectuses to members of the public or to persons known to be likely to subscribe. In the present case it is established that at least 600 persons were recruited to the scheme by means of canvasing agents, private letters and circulation of printed prospectuses. There can, I think, be no doubt as to the fact of publication and it seems to me to make no difference whatever, on the question of publication or on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the draw. It is not in my opinion necessary that the members of the public should be excluded from the place or that the place should not be used for any purpose other than the drawing of the lottery. Applying these criteria it seems to me clear that the proprietors of the present scheme did keep a place for the purpose of drawing an unauthorised lottery. That is to say, the defendants as proprietors committed offences under both the parts of Section 294-A, Indian Penal Code. 37. The next question is, to what extent the plaintiff can be said to be a party to the illegality of the action of the defendants? He was a mere subscriber. There is, so far as I am aware, no evidence that he took part in the organisation of the lottery or even that he was present at the drawing, though under the prospectus he had a right to be present if he so wished. He certainly cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 294-A. It is suggested that he may be an abettor of such an offence. Clearly he did not abet the publication of this lottery proposal for it was published persumably before he paid over his money and it was by the publication that he was induced to join the scheme. Can h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fence would be committed in connection with the scheme to which he had subscribed. Emphatically therefore he is not in pari delicto with the promoters of the scheme who have in the eye of the law, committed a crime. There is no question therefore of potior est conditio possidentis nor can it be a question of ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The plaintiff can plead the contract without pleading his own criminality and he should therefore be allowed to recover his money. 39. It seems to me unnecessary to consider at length the plea that there is no personal liability upon the defendants for such a liability is in my opinion imposed by the terms of the contract. In this view therefore I agree that the petition should be dismissed with costs. Venkataramana Rao, J. 40. The suit out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises was instituted by the plaintiff to recover a sum of ₹ 270 being the amount contributed by him towards his share of subscriptions to a chit fund which was conducted by the defendants with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum. The defence was that the chit fund transaction was lottery within the meaning of Section 294-A, of the India Penal Code and any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said description is a lottery. A lottery is a species of gaming or wagering and may be described as an agreement whereby a prize or prizes are to be awarded by drawing lots or any other chance method to one or more of the persons who risk the payment of money or other valuable consideration for the chance of winning a prize. In Webster's dictionary 'lottery' is defined as "a scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance, especially a scheme by which one or more prizes are distributed by chance among persons who have paid or promised a consideration for a chance to win them, usually as determined by the numbers on tickets as drawn from a lottery wheel". In Murray's dictionary the following meaning is given; "An arrangement for distribution of prizes by chance among persons purchasing tickets". In the latest Universal Dictionary of English Language it is defined as follows: "Organised competition for money or other prizes, the winners of which are selected by lots, the funds being subscribed by the competitors". 45. From a study of decisions both English and Indian the following four elements appear to be essential to consti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other lottery whatsoever not authorised by Parliament, or shall knowingly suffer to be exercised, kept open, shown, or exposed to be played, drawn, or thrown at or in, either by dice, cards, balls, or by numbers or figures or by any other way, contrivance, or device whatsoever, any such game or lottery in his or her house, room, or place, upon pain of forfeiting for every such offence the sum of five hundred pounds, to be recovered in the Court of Exchequer at the suit of his majesty's Attorneygeneral, and to be to the use of his majesty, his heirs and successors'. 47. The Lotteries Act 1823 provided that if any person or persons were to sell ticket or chances in any lottery not authorised by an Act of Parliament or publish any scheme or proposal for the sale of any ticket or chance in such a lottery, for every such offence he had to forfeit and pay a sum of fifty pounds. 48. It will be seen from the preamble of 42 Geo. 3 the underlying public policy which declared the lotteries common public nuisances was that they promote gambling and speculation so that great sums are obtained fraudulently from servants, children, and unwary persons to the great impoverishment and utt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion of interest on the amounts subscribed is taken into consideration, there is a certain amount of inequality of benefit and consequent advantage gained at the expense of others by those who receive the sum early and thus there is a prize gained by some which is made the matter of chance. But this loss of interest by some or gain of interest by others by itself will not constitute the transaction a lottery as the return of their contributions is not made a matter of chance. Both in the Saddar Dewani decision and in Kamakshi Achari v. Appavu Pillai (1863) 1 M.H.C.R. 448 their Lordships held such a transaction will not amount to a lottery., It is well worthquoting the reasons on which the conclusion was arrived at: (i) It has in it no element of chance or risk, the monies paid by each subscriber being eventually returned to him Aiyangar Kone v. Vidoomada Kone (1858) Sudder Dewani adalat 83. (ii) Lotteries ordinarily understood are games of chance in which the event of either gain or loss of the absolute right to a prize or prizes by the persons concerned, is made wholly dependent upon the drawing or casting of lots, and the necessary effect of which is to beget a spirit of spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lared object of which was to accumulate capital by means of monthy subscriptions from members, to advance such capital to the members in rotation, to secure payment of such advances by taking over and holding real or other securities and ultimately to divide among the members all the profits that had been made. The mode of operation was this: to obtain subscriptions from members, to advance them money on interest upon certificates of appropriation. By Article 27 it was declared that appropriations shall be allotted in two ways, the first and every fourth one thereafter, by drawing free of any premium or interest, while those intermediate shall be allotted to the member or members tendering the highest premium for the same respectively. All appropriations were to be repaid by equal quarterly payments extending over 20 years from the advance. It was urged in that case that the constitution of the society itself was illegal, as its promised benefits were to be given to the members by drawings, which made the society illegal under the Lottery Acts. Their Lordships had no hesitation in repelling the contention. Referring to the Lottery Acts, Lord Selborne observed as follows: One of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 in Smith V. Anderson (1880) 15 Ch. D. 247. In that case shares in a number of submarine telegraph companies of the aggregate nominal amount of £400,000 were purchased by subscription and vested in trustees. Each subscriber received for every £90 subscribed a certificate for the nominal amount of £100 and a deferred coupon for one 4200th part of the funds, the number of certificates being 4200 and the profits therefrom were to be divided in a certain manner stated therein. There was provision for redemption of certificates by purchase. There was also provision for redemption in a certain event by a drawing of the certificates which entitled the recipient of that certificate to particular benefits i.e., gain of £30 per share. It was contended in that case that the object of the association being for the acquisition of gain and that the drawing of the certificates for purchase by lot was a lottery. Chitty Q.C. who appeared for the association in that case met the argument relating to lottery by saying "All argument that this case is within the Lottery Acts is precluded by the decision of the House of Lords in Walling ford v. Mutual Society (1880) 5 A.C. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been an inducement for people to subscribe does not detract from the legitimate object of the transaction, namely, to provide for a charitable object and to get a lump sum at the end of a prescribed number of months. 60. Taking the various elements which go to constitute a lottery the mere obtaining of a prize by chance will not do. There must be consideration paid or promised, because it has been held in Willis v. Young and Stembridge (1907) 1 K.B. 448 that an absolutely free and gratuitous distribution of chances, none of which has been paid for, would not be a lottery. It will thus be seen that the combination of a prize, chance and gain would not be enough. That which is essential therefore is consideration paid or promised because it is only then that the fourth element of risk or loss comes in. If there is no consideration there can be no question of gain or loss. Every one of the English cases on which reliance is placed tends undoubtedly to establish this. As rightly observed in Halsbury, Vol. 15, p. 525 footnote (f): In spite of the fact that the Courts have adopted as a definition the description of a lottery given above, in which the gambling element is not mentioned,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The ticket was just as much bought as if it had been priced separately 65. In Willis v. Young and Stembridge (1907) 1 K.B. 448 medals were distributed by the proprietor of the Weekly Telegraph. Darling, J., observed: All chances are paid for in the mass by the general body of purchasers of the paper, although an individual purchaser may not pay for his chance 66. In Bartlett v. Parket (1912) 2 k.B. 497 tickets bearing four different numbers were sold for 6d. each upon the terms that the purchaser of the ticket bearing a number to be subsequently drawn by an independent person would be entitled to a bicyle as a prize. The bicyle in this case was presented as a gift by a firm of cycle manufacturers for the purpose of advertisement. The ground on which this transaction was held to be a lottery is thus stated by Ridley, J.: I am unable to see how the fact that no part of the money which was paid for tickets went for the purchase of the prize, which was presented by the Cycle Company, makes any difference. I think a lottery is held whenever there is a sale of tickets which gives the holders of them the chance of winning a prize. It is selling a chance where one ticket, by chance, en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and how much for the purchase of tea or newspaper or the entertainment, still the Courts are at pains to discover a loss, call such a loss what you will, notional or hypothetical. It is a fallacy to consider the case from the point of view of gain only. Where there is gain to one there is necessary loss to another. The gain cannot be "separated from the corresponding loss. 71. Venkatasubba Rao, J, if I may say so with respect, approaches the question from the correct stand point when in Shanmugha Mudali v. Kumaraswami Mudali I.L.R.(1925) 48 Mad. 661 on page 664 he observes: The element, therefore that is generally present in a lottery or wagering transaction, viz., that loss is occasioned to one or more does not exist in this transaction 72. It is necessary now to consider whether loss of interest to some of the subscribers can be considered a hazard of loss to constitute the transaction a lottery. The view taken in Shanmugha Mudali v. Kumaraswami Mudali I.L.R.(1925) 48 Mad. 661 was that it was not but in Veeranan Ambalam v. Ayyachi Ambalani AIR1926Mad168 Spencer, J. and Madhavan Nair, J., held it was. In so holding they relied upon the judgment of Richards v. Starck (1911....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Perryman (1895) 12 T.L.R. 125 took a different view. There the office of a certain newspaper issued a circular headed "Unique opportunity for Speculation" with reference to contemplated rise in "Brighton Stock". The scheme propounded was that those who were willing to participate in it should subscribe £25 or £50 and that the sum subscribed would be returned with profit if there is any rise in price and if there is loss the return of the money is guaranteed. Lord Esher M.R observed: There was no gambling between the defendants and the plaintiff. The defendants in effect said to the plaintiff, we (the defendants) are going to speculate on the Stock Exchange, and if you will advance us money we guarantee its return in the event of our speculations resulting in a loss 76. (Vide also 15 Halsbury p. 474 foot-note). The decision of the Full Bench is thus a distinct authority that loss of interest is not an element which would go to constitute a lottery. So far as the suit chit transaction is concerned, no question of loss of interest arises as all the subscribers have made a gift of such interest as may be earned to the temple. It is competent for a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s did not keep a place within the meaning of the section. Even assuming that the defendants are guilty of an offence under the first part of the section, the subscribers can in no event be guilty of it or an abetment of it. They were in no sense keeping a place for the purpose of drawing. Subscribing moneys for the maintenance of a lottery is not the same as keeping a place for the drawing of a lottery. 79. Again though the promoters may be guilty of a publication under the second clause of the section 294-A, subscribers can in no sense be guilty. 80. The next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the subscriptions paid by him. It is contended by Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Aiyar that the plaintiff having been a party to an illegal contract and the illegal purposes having been substantially carried out is disentitled from getting any relief. Strong reliance is placed on the decision in Petherpermal Chetty v. Muniandy Servai I.L.R.(1908) 35 Cal. 551 : L.R. 35 IndAp 98 : 18 M.L.J. 277 (P.C.). There is no doubt that the general rule is that no person can claim any right or remedy on the basis or ground that he has been a party to an illegal contract and as the illegal c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties of their office 82. I am inclimed to think that the third class of cases mentioned in Section 84 would cover cases like this and the suit transaction might also fall under it. In Veeranan Ambalam v. Ayyachi Ambalam: AIR1926Mad168 and in the judgment of Odgers, J., in Nagappa Pillai v. Arunachalam Chetty (1925) 47 M.L.J. 876 Section 84 of the Trusts Act is not adverted to, nor the well-recognised exceptions in English Law considered. I am therefore of opinion that the plaintiff is clearly entitled to get back the subscription paid by him. 83. The last argument of Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Aiyar is that in any event his client cannot be made personally liable. He based his argument on Clause 13 of the regulations of the Kuri. From a reading of the regulations of the Kuri there is nothing to exclude the personal liability of the defendants and Clause 13 only confers an additional security on the moneys of the Kuri. 84. In the result the petition fails and I concur with my learned brothers in dismissing the revision petition with costs. K.P. Lakshmana Rao, J. 85. I agree that the petition should be dismissed with costs, and in my opinion the crucial test is whether or not the cha....