KAPILNATH MISTRI Vs. SHYAMKISHORELAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant No. 1 against the judgment and decree directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 7,764.06 to the respondent-plaintiff. The suit against the other two defendants was dismissed by the trial Court. There is no appeal against them.

(2.) The plaintiff, who is admittedly a moneylender, made certain advances to the defendants from time to time. Accounts were settled on 10-11-1969 between the plaintiff and the appellant and a sum of Rs. 7,764.06 was found due to the plaintiff. The liability to pay this amount was acknowledged in writing by the appellant on the same day in the plaintiff's books. The plaintiff alleges that it was agreed that compound interest shall be payable by the defendant. In para 10 of the plaint, he pleaded that statements of accounts were submitted for the Samvat years 2027 and 2028 and for no others. He made a total claim of Rs. 11,005.21 inclusive of interest. The appellant pleaded in defence that the debts incurred by him from time to time amounted to Rs. 8,757.37 as against which he has repaid a sum of Rs. 8,090.69. The rate of interest was denied. Agreement to pay compound interest was specifically challenged. It was asserted that the plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 3 of the M. P. Money Lenders Act and was, therefore, liable to be visited with penalty as prescribed under Section 7 thereof. The appellant asserted that in that event he was entitled to reopen the entire transaction, the payments made by him are liable to be appropriated towards the principal debt and his liability then is limited to Rs. 666.67.

(3.) The trial Court held the plaintiff entitled to only Rs. 7,764.06 which is the sum acknolwedged by the appellant as due from him on accounting done on 10-11-1969. The plaintiff was held entitled to compound interest at Re. 1/-p. c. p. m. upto 10-11-1969 only and not thereafter on the finding that he did not comply with the provisions of the M. P. Money Lenders Act (hereinafter called the Act) after 10-11-1969. The defendant No. 1 appeals, but the plaintiff is content with the decree awarded by the trial Court.