Muhammad Rafiq, J.
1. This application in revision is against a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Cawnpore, dated 16th of September, 1919. It appears that the opposite party, the plaintiff, sued to recover Rs. 65 on the allegation that he had deposited Rs. 100 with the applicant with the object of doing some business, that the business was not carried out and the applicant returned Rs. 35, and Rs. 65 is still due from him. It turned out on the evidence of both parties in the court below that the business in respect of which the money was paid to the applicant was in respect of satta transactions, that is, wagering contracts. The defendant applicant went into the witness-box and stated that he had made wagering contracts on behalf of the plaintiff, the opposite party, with certain other firms, in which losses had been sustained, and the deposit made by the plaintiff had been swallowed up by the losses. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court did not believe the defendant with regard to the losses. However, it is common case of both the parties that the money was given on account of satta transcations by way of security. Section 65 of the Contract Act, under which the decree of the lower court seems to have been passed, does not apply: Dayabhai Tribhovandas v. Lakhmichand Panachand (1885) I.L.R. 9 Bom. 358. I think that under the law the claim of the plaintiff is not sustainable. I allow the application, set aside the decree of the court below and dismiss the claim of the plaintiff. Costs are allowed to the defendant applicant throughout