M.N RADHAMMA Vs. M.N VENKATANARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision petition is directed against the order dtd. 13/9/1977 passed by the Munsiff, Ramanagaram, Bangalore District, on Issue No. 3 in Original Suit No. 133 of 1976 holding that the petitioner is a money lender and further directing her to produce a money lending licence within a week from the date of the said order. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid suit against the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,850.00 as principal and Rs.1,000.00 as interest on the basis of the deed of hypothecation. The respondent is contesting the suit and one of the pleas raised by the respondent is that the petitioner was the money lender during the period when the transaction in question took place and further she was not having the money lending licence and as such, the suit should be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, one of the issues raised in the suit is as follows

(2.) The petitioner got herself examined as P.W 1. It is not disputed that the petitioner in all, had three transactions of lending money. The subject matter of the suit in question is one of the said three transactions. The other two transactions relate to the lending of money to her brothers. Apart from these three transactions, there is no other transaction of lending money by the petitioner to any other person. In her evidence also she has stated that she is not doing money lending business and she is doing house-hold work and she is a widow and she has four brothers including the defendant and she has paid Rs.5,600.00 to the defendant, and that she got the said money out of the properties of her husband; that her brothers were in difficulties and as such, requested her for money and that she advanced the money on execution of hypothecation deed which was executed by the wife of late Govinda Rao who was one of the brothers of the petitioner. In the cross-examination, she stated that she is not a money lender. In the cross-examination it was not suggested to her that apart from these three transactions, there were other transactions of lending money by the petitioner nor it was suggested to her that she has been doing money lending business regularly. On consideration of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Munsiff held Issue No. 3 in the affirmative and directed the petitioner to produce the money lending licence.

(3.) Shri S. Shivaram, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended before me that from these three transactions relied upon by the respondent, it cannot at all be held that the respondent has established the fact that the petitioner was doing the money lending business. It was submitted that the petitioner has lent the money to her own brothers and apart from these three transactions, there were no other transactions of lending money and with these three transactions, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a money lender.