FAKIR CHAND SETH Vs. DAMBARUDHAR BANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in appeal against the judgement of the Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna in Money Suit No. 33/73 wherein he had prayed for recovery of Rs. 17,815/- including interest due on an agreement executed by the defendant on 19-1-1972.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that on 19-1-72 he advanced a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the defendant for supply of paddy in evidence whereof the defendant executed a document (Ext. 2) incorporating the terms agreed to between the parties. It was stipulated therein that the defendant is to supply 350 bags of paddy at the rate of Rs. 43/- per bag of fine paddy and at the rate of Rs. 45/- per bag of superfine paddy by 28-2-72 and after the said supply the defendant was to take return of the document executed by him. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant neither supplied the paddy nor refunded the advance money to the plaintiff in spite of several demands though the defendant had sent two letters to him requesting for time to settle up the matter. The plaintiff has alleged that he is not a regular money-lender and the aforesaid transaction was a solitary one in which he had advanced money for purchase of paddy as aforesaid. The suit has been filed for recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,000/- which the plaintiff had advanced to the defendant and also for interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement denied the plaint allegations denying the execution of any document on 19-1-72 in favour of the plaintiff and also denying to have received any amount whatsoever as advance. He also denied to have sent any letter acknowledging the receipt of the aforesaid amount nor did he ever undertake to repay the same as alleged in the plaint. A plea has been taken by the defendant that the plaintiff not being a licensed dealer, he could not legally purchase huge amounts of paddy as per the stipulations of Ext. 2. It is, therefore, contended that Ext. 2 being a contract for sale and purchase of paddy, the same was illegal and void being opposed to law as it would amount to procurement of paddy without a valid licence for which the said document is unenforceable in law and the amount said to have been advanced by him is not legally recoverable. The defendant also takes the plea that the plaintiff is a regular money lender and he having no money lending licence, the principal as well as interest thereof cannot be recovered by him in the suit.