S.K.JHA, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants against the judgment of reversal. When the case was placed for hearing before the learned single Judge of this Court, namely, N.P. Singh, J., he referred this case to Division Bench by his order dated 22-12-1980, and the point formulated for decision is:

"Whether Section 8 read with Secs.4, 5 and the definition of Money-lender in Sec.2(k) of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 , places a bar on Court from entertaining a suit filed by a person who claims to have made a casual advance to the defendant?"

Hence this case before us.

2 The facts are not in controversy. The appellants advanced a loan to the mother of the defendant. That fact is not denied. The concurrent findings of facts of the two courts below are that it was a case of a stray loan because the mother of the respondent happened to be a close neighbour and a Mausi by village relationship as she had fallen in dire necessity of having such an accommodation loan.

3. It is admitted at all hand that if it were a case under the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938, (Bihar Act 3 of 1938), as modified by the Act of 1939, (in short, the old Act), Sec. 4 of that Act could not have stood as an impediment to the maintainability of the suit by the appellants on account of a bar imposed by Sec. 4 of the old Act. In the meantime, however, a new statutory provision has come into force, being the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 , (Bihar Act 22 of 19751 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act), published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary, dated 29-4-1975. This suit has been instituted after commencement of the new Act.

4. Before the new Act was brought on the Statute Book it was consistently held that in order to defeat the claim of a money lender it must be established that he was a professional money lender having no licence under the Act. To quote the language of a decision in Dwarkadas Marwari V/s. Kalipada Dey d; (1959 BLJR 145), presided, over by Ramaswami, C.J. it was held that :

"......... The principle to be applied to a case of this description has been laid down by this Bench in Saraswati Devi V/s. Janaklal Thakur (S.A. No. 1182 of 1954, D/-12-12-1958). It was pointed out in that case that a man does not become a money-lender by reason of occasional loan to relations, friends or acquaintances, nor does he become a money-lender merely because on one or several isolated occasions he may, lend money to strangers. It was also pointed out in that case that the business of money-lending imports a notion of system, repetition and continuity, and that was the proper legal test to be applied for the purpose of finding out whether the plaintiff was a professional money-lender and whether the suit was barred by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act. In another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sano Kasinath Chaudhuri V/s. Pattito Sabuto (1943-24 Pat LT 11) : (AIR 1942 Pat 384) it was observed that there must be more than occasional and disconnected loans if there was to be a finding that the plaintiff was a professional money-lender and the bar of Sec. 4 of the Bihar Money-Lenders Act operates. In that case Harries, C.J. quoted with approval the observation of McCardie, J. in the case of Edgelow V/s. MacElwee (1918-1 KB 205) to the following effect :-

"A man does not become a moneylender by reason of occasional loans to relations, friends or acquaintances, whether interest be charged or not (underlining is ours for the sake of emphasis). Charity and kindliness are not the bases of usury. Nor does a man become a money-lender merely because he may upon one or several isolated occasions lend money to a stranger. There must be more than occasional and disconnected loans. There must be a business of money-lending, and the word business imports the notion of system, repetition and continuity...... The line of demarcation cannot be defined with closeness or indicated by any specific formula. Each case must