LAXMI LAL Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,282.13p. against the defendants with the allegation that the plaintiffs are doing the business and the defendant used to purchase cotton from the plaintiffs. On Ashad Sud Dasham Samwat Year 2034 (upto 26.6.78), the accounts of the defendant were settled and the defendant admitted that the amount of Rs.2,535/- in this account is due in him. The defendant after admitting his liability in security to that due amount, executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs but he did not pay the said principal amount and interest levied thereon, therefore, the plaintiffs' case is that at the time of filing the suit, the total amount of interest is Rs.560/- along with the principal amount is Rs.2535/- total Rs.3042/- were due in the defendant. The plaintiffs further stated that on Ashoj Bad Ekam Samwat 2034 i.e. 28.9.1979, the defendant further purchased one bag of cotton vide bill no.457. The cost of this cotton amounting to Rs.141.17p. also was not paid by the defendant. Again on Magsar Bad Ekam Samwat 2034 i.e. on 26.11.1977, the defendant purchased one more bag of cotton, the cost whereof was Rs.136.96p. The plaintiffs pleaded that there was condition of payment of interest at the rate of Re.1/- per Rs.100/- per month on due amount and that condition is printed on the back of the bill. The plaintiffs, therefore, pleaded that total Rs.298.13p. of cotton purchased, referred above, was due in the defendant, against which, the defendant paid Rs.30/-, Rs.40/- and Rs.10/- total Rs.80/- on various dates. In view of the above payments, the plaintiffs amount of Rs.218.55p. remained due in defendant upto Chat Sud Pancham Samwat 2035 and interest of Rs.22/- became due. Thereby, total amount of Rs.240.13p. remained due in the defendant. The plaintiffs, with these allegations, prayed that a decree of Rs.3,042/- plus Rs.240.13p total Rs.3232.13p be passed against the defendant along with interest at the rate of Re.1/- per Rs.100/- per month.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit of the plaintiffs but without denying the facts as stated by the plaintiffs in paras no.1 and 2 of the plaint wherein there is a reference of business dealings. The defendant's only contention with respect to paras no.1 and 2 was that the facts stated in paras no.1 and 2 are not admitted. However, the defendant took a plea that the plaintiffs are money lenders and they are not having license as required under the Rajasthan Money Lenders Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963') and the plaintiffs have not complied with the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Act of 1963, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable.

(3.) The trial court framed the issues wherein one of the issue was whether the plaintiffs are money lenders and they have not complied with the provisions of the Act of 1963 ? The evidence were led by the parties and thereafter, the trial court held that the plaintiffs proved execution of the pronote which contains the term of interest also and the plaintiffs by evidence oral as well as documentary proved that the defendant purchased the cotton from the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs in their plaint. However, while deciding the issue no.3, the trial court observed that the plaintiff PW1 himself admitted that his more than one lakh rupees are due in various persons which is the amount of cotton as well as of clothes.