HARJI HIRA Vs. VASTA ARJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this appeal against the decree passed by the learned single Judge in Second Appeal 99 of 1970. The learned single Judge granted the certificate of fitness to enable the plaintiff to file this appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are as under : The plaintiff had been advancing to the defendant loans right from 1950 On 13th March 1963 after having taken accounts of what the plaintiff had advanced to the defendant the defendant executed a mortgage transaction in favour of the plaintiff to secure his debt. The defendant did not pay the amount due under the mortgage transaction and therefore the plaintiff filed on 5th November 1966 the present suit for recovering the mortgage amount. The defendant inter alia contended in defence that the plaintiff was a moneylender governed by the Bombay Money-lenders Act 1946 and that he could not file the present suit without producing money-lenders licence.

(3.) The learned Trial Judge raised the necessary issues. One of the issues related to the maintainability of the suit. It appears that on the applications made by the plaintiff the learned Trial Judge granted him some time to produce the money lenders licence. He produced one for the years 1963-64 to 1967. However in order to maintain his suit he was required to produce the money-lenders licence right from 1950 because the transactions of advancing loans to the defendant so far as the suit claim is concerned had commenced in 1950. The plaintiff could not produce such a licence. The learned Trial Judge therefore found that in absence of a valid money-lenders licence for the period commencing from 1950 the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable. He therefore dismissed the suit.