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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document