RAJARAM BHIWANIWALA Vs. NANDKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case has been referred to the Full Bench for reconsideration of the decision in Tulsirarn Ramdayal v. Badriprasad Jankiprasad, ILR (1948) Nag 203 = (AIR 1949 Nag 31) and that in Shrikishan v. Mahadeo, 1959 MP LJ 50.

(2.) THERE is no material point of fact which is now in dispute. The suit out of which this appeal arises, was brought by the appellants as trustees of Seth Kirodimal Charity Trust, for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000, as principal and Rs. 10,950 as interest, on the foot of a mortgage dated 18th November, 1953, as plaintiffs, against the respondents who had executed the same, to secure a loan advanced of Rs. 1,50,000. The loan carried interest @ 6% per annum, and it is not in dispute that upto 1st October, 1962, interest was regularly paid. Thus the respondents had in all paid Rs. 79,875 as interest. On 7th January 1964, the appellants filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 as principal and Rs. 10,950 by way of interest due from 1st October 1962 till the date of suit. The appellants explicitly admitted that they were money-lenders, and that they had not maintained any account of the loan, nor furnished to the respondents any statement of accounts in respect thereof, as required by Section 3 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act. The non-compliance of these provisions not being in dispute, the learned trial Judge, while passing a decree on the mortgage, disallowed the entire interest under Section 7 of the Act, including the one that had already been paid, i. e. amounting to Rs. 79,875, and the same was taken towards reduction of the principal and accordingly a decree was passed only for Rs. 70,125, the remaining amount of principal.

(3.) THE referring Bench did not state, in so many words, the question on which the opinion of the Full Bench was invited, and, therefore. I would formulate the question as follows : Where the moneylender has not complied with the requirements of Clause fa) or (b) of Section 3