IMRAT Vs. LANJUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The occasion for this reference arose on petitioner's counsel citing two Bench decisions of this Court and placing implicit reliance thereon when the matter came before two of us sitting in a Division Bench. He contended that interpretation therein of the relevant statutory previsions was holding on us and the law therein laid down was based on valid and sound propositions. That position being disputed and finding apparent merit in the challenge to the views taken in the decisions cited, this reference was made.

(2.) It is not necessary to deal or decide any fact except to the cutting briefly petitioner's case. Respondent No. 1 had executed a registered sale-deed in his favour on 30-12-1978 in respect of an area of 3.125 hastaram of agricultural- land for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. Out of that amount Rs. 200/- had been paid earlier and Rs. 1,800/- was paid at the time of registration. Petitioners got possession of that land and had been cultivating the same. On 11-4-1964, the said respondent moved an application under M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vergon Ke Krishi Bhumidharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritan Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, for short the Adhiniyam, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shivpuri (respondent No. 3) for relief contemplated thereunder. On that being allowed, an appeal was taken by the petitioners before the Collector, Shivpuri (respondent No. 2). That failed. Precisely, petitioners' case is that they were not money-lenders by profession and that the sale transaction evidenced by the sale-deed was not a "prohibited transaction of loan". Interpretation of clauses (d) and (f) of S.2, defining respectively the terms "lender of money" and "prohibited transaction of loan", is the first question to which we have to address ourselves.

(3.) Accordingly, these provisions, clause (d) in extenso, but of clause (f) the relevant part is extracted :