Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939, applies to suits on hand-notes and a money-lender who has not registered under the Act cannot maintain a suit for recovery of a loan advanced by him.

Das, J.

1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff, and the principal point of law which arises for consideration is whether the suit brought by the appellant for the recovery of a certain sum of money on a hand-note executed on the 21st July 1944, was barred by reason of the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money-Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939.

2. The facts are these. The appellant alleged that on the 21st of July 1944, defendant No. 1 executed a hand-note for Rs. 2,500.00 in favour of the appellant, and promised to pay on demand the amount with interest at the rate of twelve annas per cent per mensem. On the 7th of March 1946, defendant No. 1 paid the sum of Rs. 365/- towards interest, and made an endorsement on the back of the hand-note. Thereafter, no further payment was made in spite of demand. Hence, the suit was brought on the 20th of November 1946. It was alleged that the loan was taken for the benefit of all the defendants, the other defendants being sons of defendant No. 1. After deducting the amount paid on the 7th of March 1946, the appellant laid the claim at Rs. 2,655/- including interest.

3. The defence was a plea of payment of way of certain transactions referred in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the written statement. There was a further defence that the appellant was not registered under the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1938 , and therefore, the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939.

4. The learned Munsiff negatived the plea of payment. On the question of the bar of Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939, the learned Munsiff held that Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939, applied, inasmuch as the appellant was not a casual money lender, and the registration certificates (Exs. 7 and 7-a) which were in the name of the firm Kusalchand Meghraj, were not of any help to the appellant; because the appellant had himself admitted that the firm Kusalchand Meghraj, of which the appellant was the proprietor, had nothing to do with the amount which had been advanced under the hand-note in question. The learned Munsiff expressed himself as follows on this point:

"The firm Kushalchand Meghraj had not concern at all with those amounts. P.W. 2, has also admitted that the amounts which were advanced to defendant No. 1 out of the fund of the plaintiffs wife including the amount of the hand-note in suit was never mentioned in the account books of firm Kushalchand Meghraj."

A third point was also taken before the learned Munsiff to the effect that by reason of the expiry of Ordinance No. XI of 1945 after the 31st March 1947, Section 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939, did not hit the present appellant. This contention was also negatived by the learned Munsiff who dismissed the suit on his finding that Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939, which was still in force and effect, barred the action.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, affirmed the findings of the learned Munsiff, and agreed with him that Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939, was a bar to the entertainment of the suit. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.

6. Mr. B. C. De, appearing for the appellant, has urged the following contentions before us. Firstly, he has contended that Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939, has no application to suits based on hand-notes. For this argument, Mr. De has placed strong reliance on certain observations made by the Federal Court in Bank of Commerce, Limited Khulna V/s. Kunja Behari, AIR (32) 1945 P C 2. In that case the validity of the Bengal Money Lenders Act was in question with reference to Sections 100 and 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule, One of the