Skip to content


Pragilal Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Ratan Lal Mathra Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All458
AppellantPragilal Kanhaiya Lal
RespondentRatan Lal Mathra Prasad
Excerpt:
- - indu bhushan banerji that a claim for enforcement of a loan of this character is opposed to public policy under section 23, contract act, i am clearly of opinion that this contention has no force......with interest. the court below found that the money had been borrowed on the divali day for the purpose of gambling. this was not a circumstance which vitiated the debt and a suit for its recovery was maintainable. the court therefore gave the plaintiff a decree. it has been contended by mr. surendra nath gupta who holds the brief for mr. indu bhushan banerji that a claim for enforcement of a loan of this character is opposed to public policy under section 23, contract act, i am clearly of opinion that this contention has no force. where the defendant borrows money from the plaintiff with the clear intention of utilizing the money for the purpose of gambling but there is nothing to indicate that the plaintiff was privy to this intention, there is nothing to preclude the plaintiff from.....
Judgment:

Sen, J.

1. This is an application for revision by the defendant under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Defendant borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 300 on the Divali day. The suit was for recovery of that sum together with interest. The Court below found that the money had been borrowed on the Divali day for the purpose of gambling. This was not a circumstance which vitiated the debt and a suit for its recovery was maintainable. The Court therefore gave the plaintiff a decree. It has been contended by Mr. Surendra Nath Gupta who holds the brief for Mr. Indu Bhushan Banerji that a claim for enforcement of a loan of this character is opposed to public policy under Section 23, Contract Act, I am clearly of opinion that this contention has no force. Where the defendant borrows money from the plaintiff with the clear intention of utilizing the money for the purpose of gambling but there is nothing to indicate that the plaintiff was privy to this intention, there is nothing to preclude the plaintiff from recovering the amount from the defendant by suit.

2. I dismiss this application with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //