An agreement for payment of prize money on a lottery ticket is a wagering contract and void under Section 30 of the Contract Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment dated 18th June, 1993 passed by the Court of III Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein) for recovery of prize declared on his lottery ticket has been dismissed. According to the learned trial Judge, promise to pay prize in a lottery is in the nature of an agreement by way of wager which is void and cannot be enforced by civil suit due to prohibition contained in Sec. 30 of the Contract Act. The learned trial Judge has placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shekhar Chand Jain v. Ramnarayan Gend (F. A. No. 10 of 1975 decided on 3-2-1977 and shortnoted in 1977 (2) M. P. W. N. 118 ). The Division Bench in the said case upheld dismissal of a similar suit based on a lottery ticket by relying on a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Sir Dorabji Jamsetji Tatalimited v. Edward F. Lance, (1918) ILR 42 Bombay 676 : (AIR 1917 Bom 138 ).

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel Shri G. C. Bhatia, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, submits that the lottery was organised by respondent No. 3 Vaibhavshali Raffle Committee. Indore for raising fund for respondent No. 2 Indore Table Tennis Trust and there was due permission obtained from the Lottery department of the State of M. P. The respondent No. 4 Chandra Agencies, New Delhi acted as agent of respondent No. 3 in organising the lottery and in selling the tickets. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that as the lottery was held with due permission of the State Government, the same was not illegal and there was no illegal contract which could be refused to be enforced by the Civil Court.

( 3 ) WE have also heard Shri Naman Nagrath, G. A. , for the State and Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. The respondent No. 4 who acted as agent for organising the lottery and selling tickets remained ex-parte and has not appeared in this Court.

( 4 ) THE relevant part of Section 30 of the Contract Act reads as under:-"30. Agreements by way of wager, void.- Agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager; or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made. "in the case of Shekharchand Jain (1977 (2) MPWN 118) (supra) it was a State lottery and the suit founded on a ticket sold in the lottery was dismissed holding that even though a State lottery is not illegal, it is nonetheless "in the nature of wager" and, therefore, a person who wins a lottery cannot sue for recovery of the prize money. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Division Bench in the case of Shekharchand (supra) relied on an old decision of the High Court of Bombay of the year 1917. It is submitted that now the lotteries are organised by the State and private parties with permission of the State under State and Central enactment and refusal to decree such suits for recovery of prize money on a lottery ticket was not justified in law. Reference is made to M. P. Lottery (Niyantran Tatha Kar) Adhiniyam, 1973.

( 5 ) WE have looked into the provisions of the above Adhiniyam of 1973 in which we find that the lottery has been defined in Sec. 2 (a) thus:" 'lottery' means a scheme for distribution of prizes by lot or chance to those persons participating in the chances of a prize by purchasing tickets. "section 3 of the Adhiniyam provides that except as provided by the Act, all lotteries other than those organised by Central and State Government would be unlawful. The other provisions of the Adhiniyam lay down procedure for obtaining licence for holding private lotteries and levy of tax on such lotteries. We are also made aware of a central legislation on the subject of lottery i. e. Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998.

( 6 ) IN our considered opinion, neit