Skip to content


Venkatachella Chetti Vs. Venkata Subba Rau - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR17Mad496
AppellantVenkatachella Chetti
RespondentVenkata Subba Rau
Cases ReferredThacker v. Hardy L.R.
Excerpt:
indian contract act - act ix of 1872, section 30--contracts to buy and sell government promissory notes--whether wagering contracts or not--contracts for payment of differences only. - - best, j......suit was tried with original suit no. 74 of 1892, which forms the subject of appeal in original suit appeal no. 36 of 1893.3. the learned judge has dismissed the suit for the reasons given in his judgment in the connected suit with the remark added that the plaintiff in this suit has 'put himself out of court by practically admitting that the contract was for payment of differences only.' but on referring to the evidence in the case i am unable to find any such admission on the part of the plaintiff. plaintiff's statement (as his own first witness in the case) is that the 'intention was to get actual delivery of paper, but if he sold again to the same party then differences only were to be paid'; and, as a matter of fact, a sale to defendant was made on the 28th november, i.e., two.....
Judgment:

Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. The learned Judge rests his decision in this case against the plaintiff on his practically admitting that the contract sued on was for payment of differences only, and on the reasons assigned by him for his decision in Original Suit No. 74 of 1892. I concur in that opinion for the reasons mentioned in my judgment in Regular Appeal No. 36 of 1893. I would dismiss this appeal also with costs, and disallow the memorandum of objections.

Best, J.

2. This suit was tried with Original Suit No. 74 of 1892, which forms the subject of appeal in Original Suit Appeal No. 36 of 1893.

3. The learned Judge has dismissed the suit for the reasons given in his judgment in the connected suit with the remark added that the plaintiff in this suit has 'put himself out of Court by practically admitting that the contract was for payment of differences only.' But on referring to the evidence in the case I am unable to find any such admission on the part of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's statement (as his own first witness in the case) is that the 'intention was to get actual delivery of paper, but if he sold again to the same party then differences only were to be paid'; and, as a matter of fact, a sale to defendant was made on the 28th November, i.e., two days before the date on which defendant was to deliver under the original contract. I have no doubt whatever the plaintiff was, in a sense, gambling in Government paper, but such gambling, however demoralizing and reprehensible, is not illegal, as observed in Thacker v. Hardy L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 685 In the absence of proof that at the time of entering into the original agreement the understanding of both parties was that it was merely for payment of differences, I am of opinion--for reasons stated in my judgment in Original Suit Appeal No. 36 of 1893--that the contract between the parties cannot be held to be void within the meaning of Section 30 of the Contract Act.

4. If the same objections have been filed in this case, I would disallow them for the reasons stated in my judgment in that case, and also for reasons stated in that judgment I would allow this appeal; but as my learned colleague's finding is in favour of the respondent, the decree of the learned Judge in the Court below must be affirmed, and this appeal dismissed with costs under Section 575 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Branson d Branson, Attorneys for Appellant.

6. Wilson of King, Attorneys for Respondent.


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