FATEH CHAND Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is appeal by Fateh Chand plaintiff against Des Raj defendant, it has arisen out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,500/- on the basis of bond dated May 16, 1958, executed for a sum of Rs. 8,350/- payable by instalments by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. According to the terms of that bond, it was agreed that if the defendant failed to pay the amount of any instalment, he would be liable to pay interest at Rs. 1% per mensem. It is admitted by the plaintiff that first instalment of Rs. 1,410/- payable on January 1, 1959, was paid on January 7, 1959 and the second instalment of Rs. 1,400/- payable on July 1, 1959 was partly paid on August 14, 1959 and partly on October 20, 1959, to the extent of Rs. 1,100/-. The balance of Rs. 5,850/- payable as out of the principal and Rs. 1,650/- payable by way of interest as stipulated remained unpaid. Hence the plaintiff brought a suit recovery of that amount. In his written statement the defendant controverted certain facts by pleading that the plaintiff was a money lender, that he did not obtain a certificate of registration as money lender, that the plaintiff did not maintain accounts nor he sent statements of account to the defendant to be maintained by him as required by the Pepsu Money Lenders Act, 1956 , hereinafter called 'the Act', that the condition of payment of interest was penal one and that the plaintiff had realised more than double the amount of principal lent to the defendant and was by the rule of Dam Dupat not entitled to recover any thing further, that the defendant pawned his gold ornaments weighing 110 tolas with the plaintiff to secure the loan and that the suit was not competent until the plaintiff returned the ornaments to the defendant. These pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :-

(2.) The trial Court found issues Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. On issue No. 2, it gave the finding that the plaintiff as required by the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act, had to maintain accounts of the loan due from the defendant and had to furnish to the defendant copies of annual statement of his account maintained by him. It took the view that as mandatory provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act had not been complied with there followed the consequence is of the plaintiff being deprived of the interest and costs of the suit filed by him. In the result, he granted the plaintiff decree for the principal amount of Rs. 5,850/- but refused to grant a decree for Rs. 1,650/- by way of interest and also disallowed the costs. This appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the decision given by the trial Court against him on issue No. 2.

(3.) Shri Naginder Singh, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant has contended that the provisions of Section 6 of the Act relate to the supply of receipts by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of each payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff and the same having not been denied to have been complied with by the plaintiff and the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff not falling within the definition of the word 'loan' as given in clause (ix) of Section 2 of the Act, Sections 3 and 7 did not apply to the case and consequently the judgment and decree of the trial Court in disallowing the interest and costs to the plaintiff is not maintainable.