MAGNI SINGH Vs. MAHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,600/- inclusive of interest on the basis of a writing in the Bahi. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant-appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,200/- on May 27, 1956, from the plaintiff-respondent as a loan and to that effect executed an entry in his Bahi and he agreed to pay an interest at the rate of Rs. 1/- per mensem and that he failed to pay the amount. Hence the suit. The claim was resisted by the defendant-appellant. The parties went to trial on the following issues :-

(2.) Issue No. 1 was decided against the defendant-appellant and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It was found that the plaintiff-respondent had advanced Rs. 1,200/- as a loan and that the defendant-appellant had failed to prove that he had the sum of Rs. 1,200/- as a loan from Ram Gopal at the time of the execution of the entry. Issue No. 2 was decided against the plaintiff-respondent and it was held that the plaintiff-respondent was a money lender and it was also held that the plaintiff-respondent does not possess money-lending licence. Consequently, it was held that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff-respondent is not competent to sue for recovery of money. Issue No. 3 was also decided against the plaintiff-respondent and in favour of the defendant-appellant. Issue No. 4 was decided against the plaintiff-respondent. On the basis of these findings the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed.

(3.) Dissatisfied by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, Rohtak, which was allowed and a decree for the recovery of Rs. 1,200/- only was passed. It was held that the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to recover interest as he failed to give notice to the defendant-appellant under the provisions of Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act, 1930. Hence this second appeal by the defendant-appellant.