TULSABAI NATHUDAS Vs. NARAYAN AJABRAO RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He had filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 919. 41 with interest on the basis of a promissory note dated 7-6-1958, admittedly executed by the defendant. The avernments made by the plaintiff in the plaint only made out a case of cash consideration having been paid to the defendant at the time of the execution of the promissory note. He claimed Rs. 900/- as principal, Rs. 18\- by way of interest from 11-4-1961 to 11-6-1961, and Rs. 1. 41 P. as notice charges. The defendant admitted the execution of the promissory note, but according to him, no consideration was paid in cash. His story was that one Rambhau son of Bhabhutrao who was a minor, had to pay three instalments according to a scheme framed by the Debt Conciliation Board for repayment of the debts of the plaintiff. According to him, the repayment was to be made in instalments of Rs. 300\- each due on 15-3-1956, 15-3-1957 and 15-3-1958, but Rambhau, who was a close relation of the defendant, was unable to pay the same and the plaintiff therefore, insisted that the defendant should execute a promissory note in suit for the amount of Rs. 900\- due from the said Rambhau. According to the defendant, the instalments due on 15-3-1956 and 15-3-1957 had become irrecoverable, and in order to save limitation the plaintiff insisted on the defendant executing the said pro-note to keep the claim with limitation. The other contentions raised by the defendant were that the plaintiff was a money lender by profession and he was not entitled to sue without a money lender's licence under the C. P. and Berar Moneylenders Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Moneylenders Act.)

(2.) THE trial court on evidence found that no cash consideration flowed from the plaintiff to the defendant when the promissory note was executed by him. It also found that out of the three instalments payable by Rambhau the instalments due on 15-3-1956 and 15-3-1957 had become barred by limitation. It also found that the plaintiff was a moneylender and that he had a licence; but on the finding that there was no consideration for the pro-note. the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(3.) THE plaintiff field an appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit. The lower appellate court held that the first tow instalments had become irrecoverable in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the C. P. and Berar Debt Conciliation act, 1933, and that the only legal consideration for the promissory note was Rs. 300\- which represented the instalment which could validly and legally be recovered on the date on which the promissory note was executed. The plaintiff was, therefore, found entitled to recover Rs. 300\- from the defendant, but the lower appellate court declined to grant interest to him in view of the provisions of section 7 of the Moneylenders Act because he had not complied with the requirement of sending yearly statements of accounts being sent to the debtor. A decree for Rs. 301. 41 P. with proportionate costs of the suit was, therefore, passed in favour of the plaintiff after setting aside the trial court's decree dismissing the suit. The plaintiff has now filed this second appeal.