GOPU SUKKIAH Vs. PERUMANDLA VEERA MALLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This revision petition under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, arises out of a suit to recover money due on a promissory note, dated 11th June, 1956. Two pleas were raised by the defendant; firstly, that the promissory note is not genuine; secondly, that the plaintiff is a money-lender within the meaning of section 2 (7) of the Hyderabad Money-lenders Act and that, since the plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of section 9 of the Act, his suit has to be dismissed. The suit was tried by the learned District Munsif. His judgment is, by no means, clear. He framed three issues, which are as follows :

(2.) "The above oral evidence led by the parties is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff has been professionally lending money or been doing money-lending business and earning profits in the past. But the question is whether in spite of the existence of the stipulation of interest in the suit promissory not will the plaintiff be excluded from the definition of money-lender given in sub-section (7), section (2) of the Hyderabad Money-lenders Act. " Finally, he found that the plaintiff is a money-lender within the meaning of the Art and that he has not complied with the provisions of the Act. On Issue No. 1, he found in favour of the plaintiff. But, on the finding on Issue No 2, he dismissed the suit The plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court, Warangal which confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff was a money-lender and She did not comply with the provisions of the Hyderabad Money-lenders Act. Therefore, the learned District Judge confirmed the dismissal of the suit by dismissing the appeal. Hence, this revision petition under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) It is argued that the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish that the plaintiff is a money-lender within the meaning of the Act and that a person, who casually lends money to his friends or relatives cannot be regarded as a money-lender so as to apply the penal provisions of the Act. The defendant in this case gave evidence. His evidence does not seem to be of much help on this point. The learned District Judge has noted this; but he observed that the admissions made by the plaintiff himself establish that he is a monely-lender. The plaintiff in his chief examination stated : " I do not lend money on interest, but if anyone like this in need of money I give it. Like this I have given loans to two or three other persons." But in cross-examination, he stated that: " I am giving money like this to persons for the last two or three years. I gave money to Kali Komraiah, Bhoi Mangaiah and Raza."