CHENNAKESAV REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THERE is apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court rendered in Dwarakadas vs. Habib Mohammad Jaffer, Khaja Begum vs. Gulam mohiuddin and Others on the one hand and the decision in Lohori seethayya vs. Malgi Reddy Matta Reddy, on the other concerning the scope and amplitude of the definition of loan in S. 2 (4) of the Hyderabad Money lenders Act (5 of 1349 Fasli ). While the view expressed in the first two cases is that the scope of the meaning of the expression "loan" in S. 2 (4) is restricted only to cases of advance where interest is provided, in the third case a discordant note is struck. 1 therefore feel it is proper to refer the case to a Division Bench for resolution of the apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court. The papers may be placed before the Hon ble Chief justice for orders as to posting.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition raises an interesting question as to the scope and amplitude of the definition of loan under Sec. 2 (4) of the Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act (Act No. 5 of 1349 Fasli) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The question is whether money lent without interest is loan. As the question involved is one of considerable importance and as there was an apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court rendered in Dwarakadas vs. Habib Mohammad Jaffer. Khaja begum vs. Gulam Mohiuddin and Others- on the one hand and the decision in lohori Seethayya vs. Malgireddy Mattareddy on the other on the question one of us (Chennakesav Reddy, J.) referred the case to a Division Bench for resolution of the apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court.

( 3 ) BEFORE we proceed to answer the question it would be profitable to state the relevant facts which are not in dispute. The plaintiff in a Small Cause suit is the petitioner. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000/-and executed a pionote Ex. A-1 dated 1-2-73. The loan was without any interest. When the defendant failed to pay the amount inspite of several demands the plaintiff filed the suit. It was resisted by the defendant contending inter alia that he borrowed a sum of rs. 1,200/- from Raj Reddy ; the husband of the plaintiff, and executed four pronoties, two pronotes each for Rs. 1,000/-and two others one for rs. 300/-, another for Rs. 200/- in favour of the plaintiff. According to him he also gave withdrawal forms to the plaintiff to pay back to Raj Reddy to enable him to withdraw the amount in 12 instalments at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The plea of the defendants was one of total discharge.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Chief Judge posed two questions for consideration. 1. Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendant is true? 2. Whether the plaintiff is a professional money lender doing money lending business without licence?

( 5 ) ON the first question the learned Additional Chief Judge on a careful appraisal of the entire evidence in the case held that the discharge pleaded by the defendant was not true and was unwority of acceptance. On the second question the learned Judge held that unless interest was charged the transaction cannot be termed as a loan within the meaning of Sec. 2 (4) of the Act and that when the money lender advances such debt or loan a licence is required under the provisions of the Act. For so holding the learned judge relied on a decision of this Court in Dwarakadas vs. Habib Mohammad jaffer. But the Court below proceeded further to consider the question whether the plaintiff is still a money lender as defined under Section 2 (7) of the Act and held that the plaintiff is a money lender and does not possess a licence for doing money lending business and the suit was therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly he dismissed the suit.

( 6 ) IN this revision petition preferred by the plaintiff, the only question that arises and is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is whether money lent without interest is a loan within the meaning of the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document