Horwill, J.

1. The first defendant and the father of defendants 2 and 3 received subscriptions from the plaintiff for the conducting of a lottery, presumably advertised and conducted in the usual way. There can be no doubt, after Sesha Aiyar v. Krishna Aiyar (1935) 70 M.L.J. 36 : I.L.R. 59 Mad. 562 that the father of defendants 2 and 3 would have been liable to refund to the plaintiff his subscriptions. The only question that arises in this petition is whether the defendants 2 and 3 are liable for this sum out of the joint family property that has come into their hands. The District Munsiff of Sivaganga has held that they are. Hence this Civil Revision Petition by defendants 2 and 3.

2. The argument of the learned District Munsiff is in brief that the plaintiffs claim has no reference to an illegal contract and that as the father of defendants 2 and 3 was under a civil liability to return the money to the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 are also liable for that debt. It seems to me that both these statements of law are wrong. The contract between the plaintiff and the father of defendants 2 and 3 was an illegal one and it was in pursuance of that illegal contract that the fathe