ORDER Malik, J. - This revision has been filed under S. 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff, Bishambar Sahai, lives in Meerut, while the defendant firm Sagar Mal Har Saran Das carries on the work of a Pucca Arhatia at Hatras. The plaintiff entered into certain wagering contracts with the defendant who was to buy and sell grain on plaintiff's account, the delivery of the grain not being contemplated. The plaintiff from time to time deposited some money with the defendant as "sai" or cover or margin. The transactions, however, resulted in a loss and the defendant filed a suit for recovery of the loss. It was held in that case that the transactions being of a wagering nature, the defendant was not entitled to get a decree, and the suit failed. The plaintiff has now filed this suit for recovery of the cover money deposited by him. The suit was decreed by the Court below and the defendant has filed this revision. 2. The argument on behalf of the defendant is that it wag admitted that the defendants were Pucca Arhatias and it was held in the previous litigation that the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant were as principal and principal. He has urged that if the defendant is not entitled to recover his losses, the plaintiff should also not be entitled to recover the money deposited by him. The lower Court has relied on a Division Bench Ruling of this Court in Emperor Vs. Ishwar Dayal Pandey and Another, AIR 1927 All 238 Learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to another Division Bench Ruling of this Court in [Bhola Nath v. Mool Chand] (03) 25 All. 639 (641). In both these cases, however, the principal had brought a suit for recovery of the money which was in the hands of his agent. The law is now well settled that, even if a contract is of a wagering nature, if the defendant has incurred loss on behalf of his principal, the principal is liable to make good that loss. The defendant cannot be made to suffer loss on behalf of his principal merely on the ground that the contract between the principal and the third party was of a wagering nature. The defendant cannot be made to suffer loss on behalf of his principal merely on the ground that the contract between the principal and the third party was of a wagering nature. Similarly, an agent cannot keep to himself the money which has come into his hands to the credit of his principal merely on the ground that the contract between the principal and the third party was of a wagering nature. The agent can neither make a gain nor be made to suffer a loss. The position of a Pucca Arhatia or a del cradere agent is the same as that of a principal and it has been held inter partes in the previous case that the defendant must be deemed to be a principal and is, therefore, not entitled to get a decree for the loss suffered in the wagering transactions. The cases relied on by learned counsel for the plaintiff are, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on two single Judge decisions of this Court in Chhanga Mal Vs. Sheo Prasad, AIR 1920 All 167 and in Ram Gopal Vs. Govind Das, AIR 1944 All 196 If I may say so with great respect, I entirely agree with these decisions and hold that the amount Was not recoverable. A wagering contract is void ab initio and is governed by S. 30, Contract Act. The relevant portion of that section reads as follows : 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 ... 4. Section 65 of the Act cannot help the plaintiff as that only refers to an agreement which is discovered to be void or which becomes void. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has urged that when he paid these sums to the defendant the defendant became a trustee for the amount and was, therefore, liable to repay the same. He has relied in support of his proposition on two cases of the Madras High Court in Srikakolapur Venkataraju Vs. Gudivada Ramanujam, AIR 1918 Mad 163 and in Nagappa Pillai Vs. Arunachalam Chetty, AIR 1925 Mad 281 The facts of those cases were entirely different. He has relied in support of his proposition on two cases of the Madras High Court in Srikakolapur Venkataraju Vs. Gudivada Ramanujam, AIR 1918 Mad 163 and in Nagappa Pillai Vs. Arunachalam Chetty, AIR 1925 Mad 281 The facts of those cases were entirely different. In the latter case the Bench held that the contract was separable into two halves and the portion enforced by the Court had nothing to do with the part that was of a wagering nature. In the first case the Court held that the plaintiff before he could come to a Court for an equitable relief must come with clean hands. It could be hardly argued in the present case that the plaintiff's hands were clean. The defendant had on plaintiff's request entered into various transactions on plaintiff's behalf which had caused him loss which the plaintiff is not willing to pay and further wants him to refund the cover money which he had deposited with the defendant. Under the language of S. 30 of the Act itself the amount would not be recoverable. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has next relied on S. 70, Contract Act. I do not see what bearing that section has to the facts of this case. Section 70 only relates to an obligation to pay for goods which were given to another without any intention that he should not pay for the same. There is no question of the defendant enjoying the benefits of a non-gratuitous act. To my mind, the suit was wrongly decreed by the Court below. I allow this revision, Bet aside the decree of the lower Court and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs in both the Courts.