It has been held in Kamakshi Achan v. Appavu Pillai (M.H.C.R., 448), that a Kuri as ordinarily conducted is not a lottery, inasmuch as each subscriber merely gets back his subscriptions in the form of a loan, and the only thing which is dependent on chance is the order in which the loans are received. In the present case, however, one subscriber at each of the first 99 drawings received something more than what he subscribed, the amounts varying from 4 annas to Rs. 24-12-0. No doubt all the other subscribers eventually got back their money without interest but that does not affect the case of those subscribers who got prizes in excess of their subscriptions.

The fact that the promoter of the Kuri was liable to the remaining subscribers for the future subscriptions of the prizewinners does not alter the nature of the business, for the prizewinners themselves were under no such liability. Although therefore it has been consistently held in this Court that a Kuri as ordinarily, conducted does not amount to a lottery, the present form of Kuri appears to me to come within the definition of lottery, ( i.e. ) a distribution of prizes by lot or chances and I may refer to the English cases on the point [ Taylor v. Smetten (11 Q.B.D., 207), Reg v. Harris (10 Coxs C.C., 352) and Willii v. Young and Stembridge ([1907] 1 K.B., 448)]. The prizes may by actuarial calculation be found to be approximately equivalent to the interest that might have been earned by the prize-winner in the ordinary form of Kuri ; but in the present case he is absolved from all risks attendant on earning such interest but gets his prize in ready cash. I therefore hold that the plaint Kuri is a lottery in which some subscribers obtain prizes by lot and consequently plaintiffs suit to recover money paid for such lottery is not maintainable.

The petition is allowed and plaintiffs suit is dismissed with costs throughout.