The plaintiff's failure to prove the validity of the money-lending license and the loan transaction led to the dismissal of the suit.

( 1 ) THIS is a Regular First Appeal filed by the plaintiff appellant arises from the judgment and decree dated 2nd January, 1997 passed by the II additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (Mr. A. V. Chandrashekar) in O. S. No. 421 of 1989 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 43,783/ -.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in nutshell are: that the plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants claiming decree for a sum of Rs. 43,783/- with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from 22-2-1988 till the date of payment and for a direction to seize the autorikshaw bearing No. CAM 125 and for its being handed over to the custody of the plaintiff. 2-A. As per the plaint allegations, the plaintiff claimed to be a private money-lending firm registered with the Registrar of Money-Lenders, bangalore and carrying on the business of financing loans on the basis of security and hypothecation of goods and vehicles. The plaintiff alleged that he was a valid money-lender having the licence for this purpose i. e. , on the date of the suit transaction as well as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff alleged that defendant 1 (respondent 1 herein) has been a hirer of autorikshaw bearing No. CAM 125 and that the plaintiff- appellant is its owner as per the hire-purchase agreement dated 22-2-1988. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that during the second week of January 1988 first defendant (respondent 1 herein) approached the plaintiff-appellant and requested for a sum of Rs. 37,000/- as loan, so that he could purchase the autorikshaw bearing No. CAM 125. The plaintiff alleged that defendant 1 informed the plaintiff that the said autorikshaw belonged to one Sri T. Mahadev. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant informed him that he had paid the initial advance amount to Sri T. Mahadev and entered into the agreement of sale, whereunder Sri T. Mahadev has agreed to transfer by sale of the said autorikshaw in favour of defendant 1 (respondent 1 herein) and the first defendant had agreed to purchase it from Sri T. Mahadev for a sum of rs. 40,000/ -. The plaintiff averred that the first defendant was asked to come in the third week of February 1988. So on 22-2-1988 the first defendant approached the plaintiff and the plaintiff has given a sum of rs. 37,000/- to the first defendant as loan and the first defendant has executed the hire-purchase agreement of even date and along with that he executed the promissory note and consideration receipt both dated 22-2-1988. Thus, the hire-purchase agreement, promissory note and consideration receipt were all executed on 22-2-1988. According to the plaintiff, the amount of Rs. 37,000/- was repayable with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in 40 monthly instalments. The first 30 instalments were to be of Rs. 1,500/- each, the latter monthly instalments 31 to 39 were to be at the rate of Rs. 1,448/- each, and the last and final monthly installment was to be of Rs. 1,443/ -. The plaintiff alleged that as per the hire-purchase agreement, it was stipulated that in case of failure to pay two consecutive monthly instalments, the first defendant was liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 2% per annum and in case of breach or default of either of the conditions stipulated by the hirer, the plaintiff as owner was at liberty to institute proper legal proceedings for the recovery of the amount due from the hirer as well as to institute proceedings for the seizure of the autorikshaw as well. The plaintiff alleged that ever since the first defendant borrowed the said amount, he did not care to pay single pai towards hire charges. On being approached by the plaintiff, the defendant started giving evasive replies. The plaintiff alleged that in view of wilful default by the first defendant, the plaintiff-appellent had no other remedy but to determine the hire-purchase agreement and to file this suit. The plaintiff alleged that the first de