Judgement

Appeal (No. 1 of 1926) from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (September 10, 1924) reversing a decree of the High Court in its original jurisdiction.

The respondent had acted as katcha adatia for the appellant in making forward contracts for the purchase of cotton and in dealings in options on cotton, called teji mandi transactions. These dealings resulted from time to time in losses which were paid by the defendant, and he claimed in the present suit to recover the amount paid from the appellant. The appellant, among other defences, alleged that all the transactions were illegal and void as wagering contracts under the Indian Contract Act and under Bombay Act III. of 1865.

The facts are stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The trial judge (Kemp J.) dismissed the suit. He found that there was an understanding between the appellant and the respondent that the appellant should not be called upon to give or to take delivery, and held that the transactions consequently were wagering contracts.

On appeal the decision was reversed and the suit decreed. The learned judges (Shah A.C.J. and Kincaid J.), while agreeing with the trial judge that t