MANMATH KUMAR KAR Vs. MD. SIRAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the Plaintiff on 8.7.72, the Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 8, 100/ - from the Plaintiff by executing a hand note, As the Defendant failed to repay the amount, the suit was filed. The Defendant denied tat. execution of the hand note and also stated that the Plaintiff was a money tender by profession and the suit was not maintainable as he was not a registered money tender under the provisions of the Assam Money -tenders' Act 1934, for short the Act, the learned trial court framed as many as six issues and held that the band note was duly executed and that the Plaintiff was not a regular money tender. Accordingly, the suit was decreed, as prayed for. In appeal, the learned lower appellate court held that the Plaintiff being a regular money tender, non -registration under the provisions of the Act has disentitled him from filing the suit. In other words, the suit is hit by Section 7D of the Act. The appeal was alloyed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court.

(2.) THE only point which needs my consideration is whether the suit is bit by Section 7D of the Act. The said Section runs as follows:

(3.) THE question whether the Plaintiff Appellant is a money -tender or not in terms of Section 2(1) of the Act is a question of fact, and this Court can disturb the said finding if it found to be perverse from the above evidence on which my attention was drawn by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, I cannot come to the finding that Plaintiff Appellant was doing money -lending business regularly. The learned trial court has considered the entire evidence on record and has noted that the Plaintiff has got other source of income from his own private taxi, Rice Mill and landed property. So, the finding of the learned lower appellate court that the Plaintiff was carrying on regular course of money -lending business, is not based on evidence all and as such this finding is liable to be set aside.