Case laws
SANJAY BUBNA
(Querist) 06 May 2015
This query is : Resolved
Can any please mail me the copy of following judgements:
1. 1983 PLJR page 278.
2. 1979 PLJR Page 563.
3. 1996(1) BLJR 605.
Thanks
Sanjay
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 07 May 2015
Please search yourself and send it to us also.
SANJAY BUBNA
(Querist) 07 May 2015
Thanks for the revert.
Since I could not find the same, I requested for the same if anyone having it.
Request to send if any one having it.
Thanks
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 07 May 2015
Patna High Court
Guru Prasad vs Sadhu Sharan Prasad on 30 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996 (1) BLJR 605
Author: P Deb
Bench: P Deb
JUDGMENT P.K. Deb, J.
1. This Revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Money Appeal No. 3 of 1984 by which the appeal was allowed reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Garhwa in Money Suit No. 4 of 1976.
2. Originally against the appellate judgment and decree. Second Appeal was preferred, but considering the pecuniary limit the Second Appeal was converted into a Civil Revision as per Order of this Court.
3. Plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 544/- from the defendant on the basis of a promissory note and a receipt in support thereof dated 9.3.1973. The plaintiff's case is that on being approached by the defendant, he had lent amount of Rs. 400/- and the defendant executed a promissory note and a receipt thereof to repay the amount of payment being made from the side of the plaintiff with an interest at the rate of Rupee 1/- per month. Before filing of the suit, plaintiff served a Pleader notice, but the defendant did not pay any head to the said demand of the plaintiff and hence the suit.
4. In the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically stated that he is not a professional money lender and that he lent the amount to the defendant out of affinity and he had no licence under the Money Lenders Act. In the written statement, the whole case of the plaintiff has been denied together with money being taken by the defendant. It has further been stated that the plaintiff is a Money Lender and the suit is barred under Section 8 of the Money Lenders Act, having not maintained accounts and register as per Section 4 of the Act. During the course of evidence, the plaintiff had stated specifically that he did not do business of money lending and out of affinity, he had given the amount to the defendant and on two earlier occasions also, he had lent money to this defendant but the same were repaid by the defendant. He has further stated in cross examination that except the defendant he did not ever lent money to anybody else. As the defendant denied the signatures in the receipt and the promissory note, those were sent to handwriting expert at the instance of the plaintiff and the report came to the effect that the signatures in the promissory note and the receipt tally with the admitted signatures of the defendant, those documents were sent again to another handwriting expert and the contradictory report came to the effect that the signatures in the promissory note and receipt did not tally with the admitted signatures of the defendant. So, there were contradictory report by the handwriting experts. Being the expert of experts, the learned Munsif verified the signatures in the disputed documents with the admitted signature and found that in naked eye also the signatures tally with the admitted signature of the defendant. It was held in para-17 of the judgment of the trial court that the plaintiff-petitioner was not money lender by profession and as such the suit was decreed. Against the decree, appeal was preferred as mentioned above and the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree holding that the suit was not maintainable under Section 8 of the Money Lenders Act relying on a decision of the Court as reported in 1979 PLJR, page-563. In respect of the report of handwriting experts the learned appellate court was also of the view that the learned Munsif was correct in tallying the admitted signature of the defendant with that of the disputed documents being the expert of experts.
5. Mr. Jai Prakash, appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the judgment of the appellate court is erroneous on the face of it as reliance placed on 1979 PLJR, 563 has already been over ruled by a Division Bench of this Court as reported in 1983 PLJR, page-278, wherein it has been held that a man does not become a money lender by reason of occasional loans to relations, friends and acquaintances, whether interest is charged or not, nor does he become so because on one or several isolated occasions he may lend money to strangers. The definition of money lender and loan as interpreted in 1979 PLJR, page 563 have been said to be not proper in this judgment.
6. Mr. V. Shivnath, appearing for and on behalf of the Opposite party submitted that there was no evidence from the side of the plaintiff nor there was averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was not a professional money lender and when there was no such statements made by the plaintiff in the plaint or in his evidence, the Ruling 1983 PLJR page-278 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. Plaintiff has filed the suit for realisation of the loan money on the basis of promissory note and it was stated in the plaint that he is not having licence and nor a money lender. In the written statement, plea has been taken that the plaintiff is a money lender and as such burden is on the defendant to show prima facie that the plaintiff is the money lender professionally and then and then only burden would have shifted to the plaintiff to give rebuttal evidence. However, after scrutinishing the evidence on record, I find that the plaintiff has categorically stated both in examination-in-chief and also in cross examination that it was only defendant with whom he had several transactions of money. On earlier occasions twice he lent money to the defendant and the same were repaid by the defendant and in the third time when the defendant denied to make payment, he had to file the suit. He has categorically stated that he is not money lender by profession nor he had any registration/licence nor he had any register of accounts. The defence who had the burden of prima facie proving the plaintiff as a money lender remained totally mum in his evidence rather the defendant pressed only on execution of the promissory note by him.
8. Thus, I find no force in the submissions of Mr. Shivnath and when 1979 PLJR, 563 has been over ruled by 1983 PLJR 278, the judgment arrived at by the appellate court is erroneous and apart from that Ruling, in the facts and circumstances of the case also I find that the plaintiff was not doing any money lending business rather out of affinity, he had lent money to the defendant on three occasions and in view of that position, it can be said that this lending of money was not by profession but out of affinity, the plaintiff lent money to the defendant and hence the plaintiff-petitioner was wrongly held to be money lender and suit was held not to be maintainable as per bar under Section 8 of the Money Lenders Act, is bad in the eye of law.
9. Regarding execution of the promissory note and the receipt thereof, the learned Munsif has rightly held that: those documents were executed by the defendant/Opposite Party as the admitted signatures of the defendant tallied with the signatures in the document, which can be apparent in the naked eye. I have also verified the same and totally agree with the decision arrived at by the learned Munsif.
10. In view of the above position and circumstances, this Civil Revision petition is allowed and the judgment of the appellate court is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif is hereby affirmed.
11. This Revision petition is allowed with costs against the contesting Opposite party.
SANJAY BUBNA
(Querist) 07 May 2015
Thanks.
Would appreciate if case law no.1983 PLJR page 278 as mentioned in the above citation is also mailed at least.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 07 May 2015
Though not our job of providing case laws,Mr.Nadeem has taken time to give U the necessary input.Thank him.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 07 May 2015
Still if not satisfied search indiankanoon.org
SANJAY BUBNA
(Querist) 07 May 2015
Dear Mr. Sainath
Before requesting for case law no.1983 PLJR page 278, I thanked Mr. Nadeem for his input.
Secondly, case law no.1983 PLJR page 278 is not available in indiankanoon.org & as such requested.
Would appreciate if anyone can mail that.
Thanks in advance.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 09 May 2015
You can get that from the local bar association library, visit the local court and its library where you may get the desired information.
