The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a money lender to hold a valid license at the time of advancing the money and at the time of filing the suit, as emphasized in Section 11 of the Money Lenders Act 1961.

MURALIDHARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order of remand dated 30. 1. 1980 passed by the civil Judge, Madhugiri in R. A. No. 67/79. The said appeal was filed against the order of the Addl. Munsiff and J. M. F. C. , madhugiri on issues 1 and 2 on O. S. No. 21/1977. By the said order, which is dated 28th June 1979, the learned Munsiff, dismissed the suit.

( 2 ) THE admitted facts are, that the defendant executed a pronote on 26th march 1974 for a sum of Rs. 6. 000/ -. The plaintiff filed the suit on 12th June 1977. In the said suit, the following issues were raised. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has complied with the provisions of the money Lenders Act and the suit is tenable? 2. Whether the defendants are 'agriculturists' within the meaning of the term as defined in the (Mysore) Karnataka Agriculturists relief Act? 3 ). Whether the defendants prove that the said promissory note is not supported by consideration? 4. Whether the defendants prove that they are not liable to pay the suit claim ? 5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants 2 to 4 are liable to pay the suit claim, under pious obligation? issue Nos. 1 and 2 were tried as preliminary issues. In support of issue No. 1 plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and got marked Exs. P. 1 and P. 2.

( 3 ) ON appreciating the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is a money lender, as defined in the Karnataka Money Lenders Act 1961 (for short 'the Act') and that he did not have a valid licence on the date of the suit transaction. It has to be noted that the plaintiff obtained a licence dated 8. 10. 76 prior to the institution of the suit, which covered the period with effect from 1. 1. 1972 to 31. 7. 1976. The trial Court having found that the plaintiff was not a licensed money lender, dismissed the suit. Against the said decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal in R. A. No. 67/79 before the civil Judge, Madhugiri. The learned Civil judge after interpreting Section 11 of the act, came to the conclusion, that as per the unamended provision of Section 11 of the Act, the finding recorded by the trial court was erroneous and therefore he set aside the said finding the remanded the matter to the trial Court, to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. It is the validity of this order that is challenged in this appeal.

( 4 ) SRI. M. S. Gopal, who appeared for the plaintiff in this appeal supported the finding recorded by the Civil Judge. He contended that though the suit was filed on 12. 1. 1977, since the pronote was executed on 26th March 1974, it is the unamended provisions of the Money Lenders Act that are applicable. He drew my attention to section 11 of the Act, as it stood before the amendment. The said Section reads:"suits by money-lenders not holding licence- (l) After the expiry of six months from the date on which this Act came into force, no Court shall pass a decree in favour of a money-lender in any suit to which this Act applied, filed by a money lender, unless the Court is satisfied that the time when the loan or any part thereof to which the suit relates was advance and ON THE DATE SUIT WAS filed the money lender held a valid licence. (2) If during the trial of any such suit, the Court finds that the money-lender had not held such licence, the Court may, on the application of the money-lender, stay the hearing of the suit and require him to produce within a period of three months a licence on payment to the Registrar of all the arrears of the licence fees payable by him under this Act for the period commencing from the date on which he started the business of money-lending or the expiry of six months from the date on which this act comes into force, whichever is later, together with such penalty, not exceeding five hundred rupees as the Court may direct: provided that when the Court is satisfied that the failure of the money-lender to obtain a licence was due to any reasonable cause, the Court may direct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document