BASTI RAM Vs. GHEWARCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 510-1967 of the District Judge, Balotra, whereby he decreed the plaintiffs' suit in toto.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as under: The plaintiff-respondents instituted a suit against the three defendants Bastiram, and his two sons Bhanwara and Ghewarchand with the allegations that the defendant No. 1 Basti Ram executed a pronote and a receipt in favour of the plaintiffs on Phalgun Sudi 8, 2019 corresponding to 3-3-1963 for a sum of Rs. 2,101/- after acknowledging the balance of past loan and stipulated to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The plaintiffs sued for Rs. 2,101/- as principal and Rs. 749/- on account of interest, total Rs. 2,850/-.

(3.) It may be stated that the suit against Bhanwara and Ghewarchand stands dismissed and it is only defendant No. 1 Bastiram, who is at present contesting. Bastiram submitted his written statement in which he admitted the execution of the pronote and the receipt, but he alleged that the amount, in respect of which the pronote and the receipt were executed, was only of interest. Under Section 27 of the Rajasthan Money-Lenders Act, 1963 (Act No. 1 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rajasthan Act"), the plaintiffs are not entitled to interest exceeding the principal amount and the suit in excess thereof is liable to be dismissed after taking accounts under Section 27. The learned Civil Judge framed the issue No. 1, which on translation in English, is as under:-- "Whether the defendant is entitled to any benefit under the Rajasthan Money-Lenders Act ? If so, to what extent?