Namasivaya Kurukkal vs Subramania Ayyan

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.—The District Munsif was clearly in error in holding that the nine conditions applicable to ganja licenses"" (see page 4 of

Exhibit B) are the only conditions applicable thereto and that none of the general conditions applicable to all abkari and opium licenses "" applies,

even when such a condition, by its terms, is not restricted to liquor or opium licenses. ""Abkari "" is defined in Section 3, Clause (1), of the Madras

Abkari Act so as to include all the liquors and intoxicating drugs referred to in the provisions of that Act. Intoxicating drug"" is defined (in Clause

13) to include ganja and bhang but not to- include opium as defined in the Indian Opium Act of 1878. Hence abkari does not include "" opium"" but

it includes all other intoxicating drinks and substances including ganja. The thirty-eight general conditions, therefore, are said to apply to all abkari

and opium licenses, instead of merely to abkari license, because opium is not included in abkari. The second of the general conditions makes a

distinction between abkari and opium licenses. The 6th, 7th, 14th, 15th and several other conditions refer to intoxicating drugs which clearly

include ganja. The lower Court''s view that only the nine conditions specially relating to ganja licenses apply to such licenses and that no other

conditions apply cannot be upheld. Condition 16 of the general conditions prohibits vending, transferring or sub-letting and Exhibit A is clearly such

a transferring and sub-letting agreement, and the suit based on the terms of Exhibit A ought to have been dismissed as based on an illegal

agreement.

The lower Court''s decision is set aside and the suit will stand dismissed with costs in both Courts.