H R HALAPPA Vs. H DEVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to attract the provisions of the karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), should the activity of money lending be carried on as a "profession" or is it sufficient that the activity falls under the expression "business", is the point that arises for consideration in this second appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are, the plaintiff, whose legal representatives are the appellants herein, filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for recovery of money based on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant and the amount borrowed by the defendant is Rs. 20,000/- and it was to be repaid with 2% monthly interest. The defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff on 10. 1. 1990 but, did not pay the amount back with interest and hence, the suit by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE defendant contested the said suit by taking up the stand that the promissory note in question is inadmissible in view of the material alterations and insufficient stamp and secondly, the plaintiff was engaged in money lending business without having a valid licence 'as required under the Act. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.