Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1150 (RAJ)

ARUN KUMAR SONI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-05-04

JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. Instant appeal u/Sec.96 of CPC is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge Gangapur City in Civil Suit no.70/2012. 2. The brief facts noticed are that the appellant claims that he had purchased Lottery Ticket bearing No. B211299 of 80th draw of State Lotteries to be opened on 25.10.1981 but due to stay of this Court, it was not opened on that day. That he had shown the said ticket to 5 close relatives/friends and all of them noted the ticket number. Since the draw was not made on 25.10.1981, he kept the original Lottery Ticket in his documents. The draw was lateron opened on 10.02.1982 and after noticing the newspaper of Navbharat Times, he noticed that ticket No. B211299 won first price of Rs. 55,00,000/- of 80th draw of State Lotteries. On searching the aforesaid ticket, the appellant did not find the same and he immediately wrote to the respondent No. 3 about non traceability/theft of the original ticket and thereafter, he lodged an FIR on 10.03.1982 in Police Station, Gangapur City informing the respondent No. 3 by telegram about loss of the original lottery ticket. The appellant accordingly filed a claim for granting him the amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- of the Lottery and since the respondent No.3 tried to evade, therefore, he filed a writ petition which was lateron dismissed and it has also been noticed in the impugned order that Special Appeal Writ (SAW) was filed before this Court, however the same was withdrawn lateron. The Trial Court framed as many as 9 issues and recorded evidence of 5 witnesses on behalf of the appellant and in support of the claim, he also produced 15 documents and on behalf of the respondent one Mr. Giraj Prasad Meena appeared and his statements were recorded. 3. The Trial Court after noticing the evidence and documents primarily came to the conclusion that even the appellant has not produced the original ticket or any receipt of purchase of the aforesaid ticket from the vendor/Hawker or any evidence from Veenu Lottery or its agents and it was merely a version though other witnesses may support the claim but was not tenable and accordingly by the impugned order rejected the claim of the appellant and dismissed the suit. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it is a case where the appellant purchased Lottery ticket, he won the lottery and he had noted the number of the aforesaid ticket not only on various places but in his account books and had shown the ticket to five close relatives/friends who came in the witness box and asserted about original ticket having been shown to them and there is no denial from the respondent or other sides in this regard. Counsel contends that since no one came as a claimant of the first prize of lottery ticket which he succeeded and this proves that the appellant was rightful ticket holder and the claim deserves to be allowed. 5. Counsel also contended that merely because the original ticket was lost or not traceable, is no reason to disbelieve or deny his rightful claim. Counsel also relied upon judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of The Special Secretary to Government of Rajasthan, (Finance) Jaipur, Rajasthan and Others v. Vedakantara Venkataramana Seshaiyer and Others AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh 5 wherein identical fact was taken into consideration by the High Court and the claim was allowed. Counsel contended that the appeal needs consideration. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 7. Though the matter could have been dismissed as the appellant has not paid the Court fees and even an application u/Sec.149 CPC was not moved but lateron an application came to be filed and enquiry was conducted about the appellant being indigent person and there is a report of the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) & also of the Collector that the appellant is an indigent person and taking that into consideration, the defect of non payment of Court fees is waived. 8. Having heard counsel for the appellant, in my view, the claim that the appellant won 1st prize of 80th draw of State Lotteries of Rs. 55,00,000/- has rightly been disbelieved by the Trial Court and no interference is caused in the said order. It is a case where the claim of the appellant is that he had a lottery ticket bearing No. B211299 which ultimately won 1st prize of 80th draw of State Lotteries of Rs. 55,00,000/- has rightly been disbelieved by the Trial Court and no interference is caused in the said order. It is a case where the claim of the appellant is that he had a lottery ticket bearing No. B211299 which ultimately won 1st prize of 80th draw of State Lotteries of Rs. 55,00,000/- but the fact remains that neither the appellant has placed any evidence of the said ticket originally or otherwise and even the agent from whom the lottery ticket was purchased, has not been produced before the Trial Court on behalf of the appellant, a mere claim unsupported by original documents or otherwise has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court and merely because five close relatives and friends (who can be said to be interested witness) said that they had seen the original lottery ticket, is no reason and such evidence was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. A person can claim something but then he has to prove with evidence either original or Secondary which is lacking in the instant case. The respondent need not have produced any evidence in this regard because the appellant has to prove his claim first. Plaintiff has to stand on his own foot. It is also an admitted fact that though the lottery is said to be opened on 10.02.1982 but even the FIR was lodged on 10.03.1982 almost a month later though it may not by and large affect the conduct shown that FIR ought to have been lodged immediately but certainly doubt is raised; as the loss/theft of ticket was valuable and the appellant ought to be vigilant in immediately lodging an FIR. Even the factum that the appellant informed the respondent is not on record. Merely noticing the lottery ticket number in his account books, is also no reason to allow the claim of the appellant since the account can always be manipulated/written according to ones own choice and convenience and there is no sanctity of the same. 9. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court and even the Special Appeal Writ (SAW) preferred by the appellant as noticed by the Trial Court was withdrawn for the reasons best known to the appellant. 10. 9. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court and even the Special Appeal Writ (SAW) preferred by the appellant as noticed by the Trial Court was withdrawn for the reasons best known to the appellant. 10. In my view, the Trial Court has rightly taken into consideration all facts and material and even the appeal is not worth entertain-able for admission, rather it is a frivolous appeal or a claim made by the appellant and has rightly been rejected. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is wholly inapplicable/distinguishable to the facts of the instant case. 11. Consequently, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.