SMT. PARVATI DEVI Vs. RAGHABDAS BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff -Appellant's case is that the Defendant being in need of money borrowed Rs. 5, 000/ - from her on 21.8.1962 and Executed the suit document agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs. 40/ - per thousand within one month from the date of The loan. In spite of repeated demands, as the Defendant failed to repay The amount, the present suit was instituted.

(2.) THE Defendant denied to have incurred the loan. According to him, the Plaintiff, Srimati Bhanumati Devi and Srimati Chandramukhi Devi, wife of Shri Y.N. Singh, M.P. were Directors of the C.T.C. Company (Private) Limited, of which, Sri L.M. Kalo was the Works Manager and Power -of attorney bolder and Shri Hariram Singh alias Indu Babu was The Supervisor. Sometime in August, 1962, Shri Y.N. Singh who was at Delhi being in great need of money pressed upon the employees of The company to send him some amount. When Shri Kalo and Hariram Singh approached the Defendant, he pleaded inability to advance any amount. Thereupon, the said two employees of the company induced the Defendant to execute a note on 21.8.1962 and concealing the real facts obtained Rs. 5.000/ - from the Plaintiff. He denies to have received any part of the consideration. Subsequently, after receipt of notice from the Plaintiff, when be approached Shri Kalo and Shri Hariram Singh, they assured that no Action would be taken against him and granted two receipts showing purported repayment of the loan with interest. He further pleads that the present suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Orissa Money Lenders Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Appellant has urged the following points : (1) the Trial Court bas committed a grave error in holding that Ext. 1 is not admissible in evidence construing the same as a promissory note and (2) it has erred in its finding that Ext. 1 is not supported by consideration. On The other hand, the Defendant -Respondent, while supporting the above two findings of the trial Court, contends that even if the Appellant succeeds on the two points urged by him, the suit is not maintainable, in view of Section 8 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act and the finding that the Plaintiff is not a money lender is erroneous.