BASUDEO SINGH Vs. MUNSHI PURUSHOTTAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff respondent filed the suit giving rise to this second appeal by the defendant for recovery of Rs. 7,120/- on the basis of usufructuary mortgage bond. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court affirmed the decree. Thereafter this second appeal has been filed.

(2.) The plaintiffs case, in short, is that he advanced Rs. 3000/- to the defendant on the basis of two mortgage deeds dt. 23-1-1970 and again Rs. 4,000/- on the basis of two other mortgage deeds dated 31-5-1973. The plaintiff accepted the position that he was put in possession on 23-1-1970, but it is said that he was dispossessed from the mortgaged lands on 18-11-1975 after the enforcement of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1974. The plaintiff in para 5 of the plaint stated that he was not a professional money-lender and that the loans in question were accommodative loans. On these facts, the plaintiff asserted that he was entitled to the mortgage amount along with the stipulated rate of interest.

(3.) The fact that the plaintiff had advanced the loans as aforesaid was not disputed by the defendant-appellant. His case, on the other hand, inter alia, was that the defendant had never dispossessed the plaintiff and that after enforcement of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') he wanted to redeem the mortgage after paying the mortgage amount. This the plaintiff did not like and filed the present suit with a view to put pressure on him. The fact that the loans were accommodative loans was disputed by the defendant. According to him, the plaintiff was a professional money lender and no decree could be passed on the basis of the mortgage bonds until the plaintiff produced the licence under the Act.