BHUTNATH KUMAR Vs. NILKANTHA NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the plaintiff the only question is whether the Court below was right in dismissing the suit on the ground that he is not a registered money- lender.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff advanced the sum of Rs. 6,000 to the defendants on the security of a mortgage bond dated 18 June 1943. In the bond the plaintiff is described as a zamindar and not a money-lender. The bond recites that as a certificate case was instituted against the borrowers they were taking the loan to pay up the decretal amount.

(3.) In the evidence it was established that the plaintiff was an ijardhar with respect to one-third share in the estate of Indra Kumari and the defendants are also co-sharers therein, that the defendants were arrested in execution of a certificate case for the arrears of road cess for that estate and the plaintiff advanced money to them for that purpose. It is also established in the evidence that the plaintiff has not advanced any loan to anybody else. The learned Subordinate Judge finds that the plaintiff has not advanced money to any other person and that be baa not carried on the profession of money-lending in general sense of the term and so I mast hold that he has advanced only this loan, to his co-sharers in order to oblige them as the plaintiff was also a co-sharer by virtue of an ijara deed. The question for consideration is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in dismissing the suit on these findings by applying the stringent provisions of the Bihar Money-lenders Act.