HARIKUMAR RADHAKISAN Vs. UDERAM RAMKUWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am disposing of both these appeals by a common Judgment because the common questions of law and also the similar facts have to be dealt with in these two appeals. The plaintiff in both these suits which are the subject-matters of these two appeals is the same although the defendants are different. Both these appeals are by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge. Amravati, dismising the plaintiffs suits by confirming the decree of the Trial Court. These suits by the plaintiff are for the recovery of certain sums with interest on account of deposit with the defendants. In Appeal No. 313 of 1962, before me, the suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rupees 977-3-0 with interest. The suit is for the recovery of Rs. 2600/- with interest in the Appeal No. 315 of 1962. The plaintiff, in the suit which is the subject-matter of Appeal No. 313, had deposited with the defendant's firm Rs. 500/- on 23-2-1950 under a deposit chithi scribed by the defendant. It was agreed that the defendants would pay interest at 9% per annum. The plaintiff gave a notice to this defendant on 22-5-1957 demanding the deposit and the defendants refused the notice. The plaintiff, therefore, had to file this suit for the recovery of his dues, in the other appeal, the plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,500/- with the defendants on 21-4-1950. The plaintiff gave a notice to them on 11-3-1957 demanding the deposit and the defendants received the notice but failed to comply with the demand. The plaintiff, therefore, had to file this suit for the recovery of total sum of Rs. 2600/- with interest.

(2.) IN both these suits, which are the subject-matter of these two appeals here, the defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff had already served other notices to them in 1952. The plaintiff in one case had served a notice on 24-7-1952 and in die other case had served a notice of 3-10-1952. It is therefore the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff not having filed the suit within three years from the first notice, the suit is tune barred. It is further contended by the defendants that the transaction was one of loan under the C. P. and Berar Money Lenders Act, 1934. That the plaintiff having no money lending licence, under the Act, the suit was not maintainable,

(3.) THERE are other contentions also raised by the defendants but in view of the arguments by the learned advocates for the appellant, which are confined only to few contentions, it is not necessary for me to recite them.