MANOHAR PERSHAD J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has come up before us on a reference made by one of us. The suit was by an endorsee of a promissory note. Besides other defenses raised on the merits, one plea that was taken was that the assignee was a money lender within the meaning of the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act and not possessing a licence, the suit was liable to be dismissed. It appears that this question was raised before the trial Court also. That court relying upon an earlier decision of the Hyderabad High Court, Shamshir Ali v. Ratnaji. ILR 1952 Hyd 95 : (AIR 1952 Hyd 58) decreed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate Court relying upon the case of Hanmantrao v. Nalliah, ILR J953 Hyd 17 ; (AIR 1952 Hyd 98), dismissed the suit. In Second Appeal, Sri Venkatachar, learned counsel for the appellant argued before the Single Judge that the provisions of the Hyderabad Money Lenders Act do not apply to an endorsee of a promissory note. His further contention was that under the Negotiable Instruments Act, an endorsee of a promissory note became entitled to recover the amount of the promissory note by virtue of the endorsement. The learned counsel further argued that this provision in the M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document