C.L. Pangarkar, J.—This is plaintiff’s second appeal.

2. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/-, which came to be decreed. The defendant preferred appeal which was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as under:

Plaintiff and defendant know each other since long. Defendant wanted to purchase agriculture land at village Selu (Bu.). He, therefore, was to pay some money to his vendor. The defendant had an apprehension that if he does not pay money to the vendor, the contract may come to an end. He, therefore, made a request to the plaintiff to lend him Rs. 20,000/-.The plaintiff lend Rs. 20,000/- to the defendant considering his plight. On 5.9.1991, the defendant executed a hand loan receipt (Usanwar chit) in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded the said money back. The defendant failed to pay the same. It is alleged that no interest was agreed to be paid on the sum lent. On 5.3.1994, defendant met the plaintiff and assured that he should pay back the amount soon but he did not. Hence, the suit came to be filed.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying all contentions raised by the plaintiff. He denied that he had taken any hand loan from the plaintiff. On the other hand, it is his contention that the plaintiff and some of their friends used to run a chit fund scheme. The plaintiff used to collect the money from all members of the said chit fund and in order that members should be under pressure the plaintiff used to take the signatures of all members on blank stamp papers. The plaintiff had taken such signatures of many other persons including Vijaykumar, Mustafa, Deepak, Balaji, Syd. Kadar and B.M. Tagadpallewar. The defendant has never taken money from the plaintiff. He submits that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant alternatively contends that the plaintiff is a money lender and he does not hold a licence and as such the suit instituted by him is liable to be dismissed.

5. On these pleadings, the learned judge of the Trial Court found that the plaintiff had lent Rs. 20,000/- to the defendant as hand loan. He was not a money lender. The suit was not barred by limitation. Holding so, he decreed the suit. Since, the suit came to be decreed, the defendant instituted, an appeal. Learned Additional District Judge disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Trial court, dismissed the suit. He found that the suit was barred by limitation. He also found that there was a money lending transaction and the plaintiff does not hold the licence and the suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has instituted the second appeal.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant. The appeal was admitted by Mr. Kulkarni, J. with the following order.

“Having heard the learned advocates appearing on both the sides on a notice before admission, it appears that a substantial question of law arises as to the validity of the document in question, which is the basis of the suit, the question of limitation, the issue regarding the transaction being hit by the provisions of the Money Lenders Act, and lastly the finding regarding interest and damages. Having regard to the process of reasoning employed by the Appellate Court in negativing the claim of the plaintiff and further having regard to the fact that the defendant had not set up any plea regarding his unfamiliarity with Marathi language, the appeal deserves to be admitted for final hearing. The substantial question be confined to the points mentioned above. “Admit”.

From what is stated in the order, the substantial questions of law that can be culled out are as follows—

(i) Whether the suit could be said to be filed within limitation?

(ii) Whether the transaction in suit could be said to be a money lending witho