KHACHEN Vs. RAM DITTA MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point which arises in this second appeal is whether Ram Ditta Mal plaintiff has been carrying on business of money lending. While the trial Court spelt out from his statement that he was carrying on such a business, the lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that it is not so proved. The only inference that can be drawn, from his statement, according to the lower appellate Court is that on few occasions he had given advance, which in law, does not amount to record a finding that he is carrying on business of money lending in view of Amar Singh v. Kuldip Singh and others, 1952 AIR(P&H) 207.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the statement of Ram Ditta Mal plaintiff as P.W. 1, I find that the lower appellate Court rightly concluded that it is not proved therefrom that he was carrying on business of money lending. Casual advance of money to few persons does not make such a person a money lender within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938.

(3.) No other point is urged before me.