SURAJMAL Vs. ONKARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question arising for determination in this appeal is with regard to the in terpretation to be placed on the provisions of Sub -section (3) of S. 3 of the M.B. Money Lenders Act (No. 62 of 1950). It is an admitted fact that the loan in the present case was advanced on the 25th of April, 1952 and the suit was filed on 23 -4 -1955, when the Madhya Bharat Money Lenders Act was in force. Sub -section (3) of S. 3 of the said; Act requires every money -lender to register himself as a money -lender by an application made to the Sub -Registrar concerned. Sub -section (2) of S. 8 of the Act provides that, except in so far as is "provided in Sub -section (1) thereof no money -lender shall, after the expiration of three months from the date on which the M.B. Money Lenders Act is brought into force; carry on his business as a money -lender without obtaining a registration certificate under Section 3.

(2.) IT would thus follow that a moneylender was required by this law to obtain a registration certificate under Section 3 of the Act before he could carry on the business of money -lending. It is not disputed in the present case that a registration certificate Under Section 3 of the Act was issued to the present Appellant on 15 -3 -51 and that it was to remain in force for a period of 3, years. On 25 -4 -1952, when the present Appellant advanced the loan in question, he held a registration certificate Under Section 3 of the M. B. Money Lenders Act. All that Sub -section (3) of S. 3 of the Act lays down is that a money -lender shall not be entitled to bring any suit for recovery of a loan unless the provisions of that section are complied with. The provisions of S. 3 when read with those of Sub -section (2) of S. 8 require a money -lender to obtain a registration certificate before he does the business of money lending. As soon as the money -lender has obtained the certificated he can, during period for which the registration certificate is in force, carry on his business of money -lending and the transactions entered into by him during that period can be made the subject -matter of suits even though the money -lender did not, on the date of failing the suits held a registration certificate. The law does not require that a person who has obtained a registration certificate as a money lender should continue the business of money lending till the date of the suit. All that it requires it that in order to be entitled to bring a suit for the recovery of his loan the money lender must have complied with the provisions of S. 3 of the Act. This condition had been fulfilled in the present case. I am. supported in the view taken by me by a decision of Khan J. in Kunwarpalsingh v. Girwarsingk ( : 1961 JLJ 1272).