BRIJ KISHORE Vs. BABU LAL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1992, passed by the Additional District Judge, Dholpur whereby the plaintiffs-appellants' (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') money suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,758/- was dismissed.

(2.) Albeit seven issues were framed by the learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the moot point for consideration of the trial court subsequent to the remand by this Court under its order dated 11.12.1989 in civil appeal No.53/1980 laid by Smt. Raj Kumari and another was that whether Ram Prasad, the father of the appellant, Brij Kishore, now before this Court through his LRs, at the time relevant to the advancing of loan to the original defendants had a licence for money lending in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1963). Thereupon the trial court was to decide the unaddressed issue No.7 in the earlier round of litigation culminating with the judgment and decree of the trial court passed on 15.03.1980 as to whether the money suit was not maintainable on a promissory note inadequately stamped and therefore inadmissible in evidence. Following the remand aforesaid, the learned trial court vide the now impugned judgment and decree dated 25.08.1992 has held that the suit laid by Ram Prasad, the original plaintiff, was liable to fail in view of the plaintiff at the time relevant to the filing of the suit not having a licence under the Act of 1963 and also having failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 22 & 23 of the Act of 1963.

(3.) Mr. R.S. Mehta, appearing for the plaintiff in this regular first appeal, would submit that the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 came into force on 01.10.1965 whereas the transaction in issue pertains to 14.02.1964. The submission is that consequently the provisions of the Act of 1963 would not obstruct the recovery of monies by way of money suit laid. Counsel submits that even otherwise the defendants in the suit had failed to discharge their burden under the Act of 1963 to establish that the plaintiff was carrying on the business of money lending. Counsel submits that the episodic giving out of money on loan cannot be construed as carrying on the business of money lending and consequently the plaintiff could not have been held to be a money lender to whom the provisions of the Act of 1963 would attract. It was submitted that on the aforesaid two grounds, the judgment and decree of the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed as prayed.