MANGILAL Vs. R.R. CONTRACTOR & COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opponent instituted a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 437 -8 -0 as balance of the price of certain machinery and implements sold to the defendant during the period from 22nd October 1953 to 11th November 1953. The defendant admitted the sale transaction. He also admitted the payments made by him for which the plaintiff had given credit to him. He stated that he was not aware of the details of the machinery purchased by him and their price. In his special pleading, the defendant averred that the plaintiff firm was a money -lender; that he was an agriculturist; and that as the plaintiff had failed to get itself registered as required by, S. 3 of the Madhya Bharat Money -lenders Act, the suit was not maintainable. This contention of the defendant found favour with the learned trial judge who accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff thereupon preferred an appeal before the District Judge of Nimar, The learned District Judge disagreeing with the decision of the trial Court held that the transaction in suit was one of sale and not of loan and that, therefore, the Madhya Bharat Moneylenders Act was not applicable to the case. He accordingly gave to the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 405 -4 -9 besides interest and costs. The defendant has now come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) MR . Waghmare, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that, from the course of dealings it was evident that the defendant had operated an account with the plaintiff in respect of the machinery and implements purchased by him and each item after being debited against the defendant became a separate debt; that at the foot of the said account the plaintiff claimed Rs. 437 8 -0 to be due to him; and that the dealings between the parties were, therefore, in the nature of a loan transaction within the meaning of S. 2 (6) of the Madhya Bharat Money -lenders Act, 1950.

(3.) THE fallacy in the argument of the Learned Counsel that when the plaintiff had debited each item against the defendant, it became a separate debt and, therefore, a loan lies in assuming that every debt is a loan. A loan is something quite different from a debt. For a loan there must be a lender, a borrowed a thing loaned for use, as well as a contract between the parties for the return of the thing loaned. A loan contracted no doubt creates a debt. But there may be a debt contracted without contracting a loan. A dividend declared by a company is after its due date a debt of the company to the shareholder ; moneys due from an insurance company under a policy are debts; arrears of rent are debts but none Of them is a loan.