Question

Solve.
X instructed Y to enter on his behalf a wagering transaction. Y lost Rs. 10,000 in that transaction and paid from his pocket. V claimed! 10,000 from X who refused on the ground of wagering transaction. State the legal position if wagering transaction was entered into (a) Delhi (b) Mumbai (C) Ahmedabad.

Answer 1

Solution: Section to which the given problem relates: Section 30.
Decision: Ys transaction is collateral to the main transaction (i.e. wagering transaction).
Case (a): V can recovers. 10,000 from X because the collateral transaction to the main transaction which is void in Delhi, is not affected at all.
Cases (b) and (C): Y cannot recover Rs. 10,000 from X because the collateral transaction to the main transaction which is illegal in the State of Maharashtra and Gujarat, is also affected.
[Leading case: Daya Ram v. Murli Dhar]