KALAPNATH SINGH Vs. SURAJPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money on root of two mortgage bonds executed in his in by the defendants-respondents. The only question argued before me was that the lower appellate Court was not justified in admitting as additional evidence copies of two decrees standing in the name of the appellant's son and filed by the respondents in that Court in order to show that the appellant was a creditor within the meaning of the Agriculturists Belief Act.

(2.) The appellant had admittedly not maintained accounts or furnished copies of them to the defendants as required by Section 34 of the said Act. The question was whether in such circumstances he was liable to forfeit interest and also costs in the present suit. The trial Court found that the plaintiff-appellant was not a creditor and consequently decreed the suit with costs an appeal the respondents filed copies of the two decrees, one of 1943 and the other of 1945, as additional evidence, and on the basis thereof and also in consideration of the defendants statement that the plaintiff had advanced a loan to one Nakchand the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a "creditor" within the meaning of the Agriculturists Relief Act, The term "creditor" is defined in Clause (7) of Section 2 of the Act as "a person who, in the regular course of business, advances a loan as [defined in this Act," etc. etc. Even if the lower appellate Court was justified in admitting the decrees referred to above as additional evidence in appeal, the question still remains whether, in view of the number of transactions of loan proved in this case and also having regard to the entire period covered by them, it could be said that the plaintiff was a person who, "in the regular course of business", was found to be advancing loans. Both the mortgage deeds which were the basis of the suit were of the year 1931, one of the two decrees filed as additional evidence was of 1943 and the other of 1945. We do not know when the alleged debt to Nakehand was advanced by the plaintiff. The position, (therefore, was that over a period of about 15 years there were no more than four transactions of loan entered into by the plaintiff either in his or in his son's name. I do not think that this period or this number would justify me in (holding that the requirements of the definition of the term "creditor" in Clause (7) of Section 2, Agriculturists Relief Act, were satisfied.

(3.) The expression "regular course of business" has not been defined in the Agriculturists Belief Act. In Secs.16 and 32(2), Evidence Act, we have the words "ordinary course of business" and in Section 114 of the same Act we have the words "common course of business". The expression "usual course of business" is also found in certain sections of some of our Acts. These expressions are not statutorily defined in any one of these Acts, but there can be no doubt that they all indicate and imply uniformity of dealings, a certain degree of routine in business practice.