( 1 ) THIS is defendant's appeal from the judgment and decree dt. 30-1-1997 whereby the plaintiffs suit had been decreed in part namely for a sum of Rs. 77,019-43 ps. only with costs and future interest at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation of entire decretal amount. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiff originally had made a claim in the suit for a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,05,000-00. But the suit had been decreed only for Rs. 77,019-43 ps. with interest as mentioned above.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff alleged that, as per plaint allegations, he was carrying on business as commission agent and the defendant was having areca garden. The defendant used to receive money from the plaintiff now and then and the defendant had been delivering arecanuts to the plaintiff at his premises for sale on commission. According to the plaintiffs case, he used to advance money from time to time and the defendant used to take advance amount and whenever defendant was in need of money, he used to send chit for money and the plaintiff used to make advance of money and defendant was delivering arecanuts. According to the plaintiffs case, the defendant was acknowledging the amounts borrowed from him on the books maintained by the plaintiff and the defendant was due Rs. 72,044-43 ps. , as per ledger account regularly maintained by the plaintiff. So, plaintiff filed the suit and alleged that the defendant is liable to pay interest at 23% p. a. as per trade, usage, agreement and contract, but the plaintiff has charged interest only at 18% p. a. on the entire amounts due from the defendant.

( 3 ) THE defendant filed the written statement and denied the plaintiffs case and among other pleas, the defendant has raised a plea to the effect that the money-lending transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant though styled as advances, but is nothing than loan to defendant for ordinary use. Hence, plaintiff is doing money-lending business and therefore, as plaintiff has not taken any licence requisite under the karnataka Money-lenders' Act either on the date of transaction of loan or on the date of filing of the suit, so suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground as being not maintainable. The defendant has taken the plea that the plaintiff has not furnished any accounts under Sections 20, 21 and 23 of the Karnataka Money-lenders' Act and so, he is not entitled to interest and costs. No doubt, defendant has also mentioned that the plaintiff has been doing commission agent business as well.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court, on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 15 issues i. e. , 13 issues and 2 additional issues which read as under. "1. WHETHER plaintiff proves that it is a registered partnership firm and P. Vaikunta Shenoy is its Partner and competent to file this suit? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant had a mutual, current and open account in his firm? 3. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant used to take advance from firm? 4. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant was acknowledging the amounts received by him on the books mentioned by the plaintiff? 5. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant was due Rs. 72,044-43 ps. as on 13-9-1990? 6. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant is liable to pay interest at 23% p. a. ? 7. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled to Rs. 32,955-57 ps. towards interest as claimed in the plaint? 8. Whether defendant proves that he is liable to pay interest not more than 6% p. a. as stated in para 9 of his written statement? 9. What is the amount due by defendant to the plaintiff? 10. Whether provisions of Karnataka Money-lenders' Act is applicable to the suit transaction? 11. If yes, whether defendant proves that plaintiff is a moneylender? 12. If yes, whether plaintiff proves that he has complied with the provisions of Karnataka Money-lenders' Act? 13. For what reliefs the parties are entitled?"additional Issues. 1. WHETHER defendant prove