SHYAM SUNDER Vs. SURAJMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question arising for determination in this appeal is with regard to the interpretation to be placed on the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 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, tiled on 23-4-1955, when the Madhya Bharat Money Lenders Act was it 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 moneylender has obtained the certificate, he can, during the 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 moneylender did not, on the date of filing 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 is 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. Girwarsingh, 1961 JabLJ 1272.

(3.) The result is that this appeal is allowed. The decree passed by the Courts below is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for decision on the merits Costs shall abide the result.