In wagering agreement both the parties should either win/lose based on an uncertain event. [Babasaheb Rahimsaheb vs Rajaram Raghunath Alpe]

Babasaheb Rahimsaheb vs Rajaram Raghunath Alpe (1931) 33 BOMLR 260

Before the High Court of Bombay

Decided on: September 3, 1980

Bench: Govind J Madgavkar, KW Barlee

Author: Govind J Madgavkar

Brief facts:  The parties in the case are wrestlers who entered into an agreement to wrestle in Poona on a certain day.

  • The agreement also stipulated that the party which fails to appear has to forfeit Rs. 500 to the opposite party;
  • The winner will receive Rs. 1125 of the gate-money, which is received from the spectators.

The defendant, in this case, failed to appear in the ring and plaintiff sued for Rs. 500. The plea of wagering was put forward by the defendant but the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant aggrieved by that decision filed a revision petition in the high court.

Issues:

  1. Will the first clause of the agreement, by the reason of it being void render the whole agreement wagering?
  2. Whether the second clause of the agreement wagering, where money is given to the winner?

Arguments by petitioners:

  • The petitioners (defendants in the lower court) argued that agreement to pay the winner was uncertain, and therefore wagering.
  • They also contended that whether wrestling is a test of skill or strength was immaterial and the whole agreement falls under the section 1 of Bombay act, 1935.

Arguments by the respondents: 

  • The respondents primarily contended that this agreement was made in furtherance of wagering contracts and as a collateral or security to the wagering contract.

Held:  – The agreement was held to be valid and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio:

(This brief was prepared and submitted to LawBriefs.in by Aarsh Chokshi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.) 

Leave a Reply

Close Menu