Ramalinga Reddi and Another vs Muthu Thevan and Others

In these cases the lower Court has held no satisfactory trial. It has in each formulated the points for decision far too generally, and has failed to

consider that the defendant in each set up a particular case in evidence, to which he had made no definite reference in his written statement. The

conclusion that the debts sued for were contracted for gambling purposes is not clearly sufficient to render them irrecoverable with reference to

Section 23 or 30, Indian Contract Act, since it might cover alike money lent (1) for payment to others for losses already incurred, or (2) to enable

defendant to gamble in the future, or (3) even to pay the amount of loss already due to plaintiff for past play. It is not clear that money lent in each

of these different sets of circumstances could be irrecoverable, vide, for instance Subbaraya v. Devandra 7 M. 301.

It is a further objection to these decisions that they do not refer to or contain any conclusions regarding the details of the defence evidence. For

instance, in Small Cause No. 481, though the written statement denied receipt of consideration, the defendant in evidence admitted that in

exchange for the promissory note chits, apparently representing costs, were given yet the judgment contains no reference to this. Nor do the other

judgments to similar points.

In Civil Revision Petition No. 544 we consider that the lower Court has dealt with the evidence, as though the burden of proof regarding the

passing of valid consideration were on plaintiff. It should have imposed it on defendant.

In these circumstances, the lower Court''s decisions must be set aside and the Small Cause Suits remanded for re-admission and re-trial. The

lower Court must call on the defendants to submit amended written statements, in which their pleas are set out definitely and particularly. It should

then set out the points for decision clearly in each case in the light of the foregoing.

Costs will follow the result.