A person does not become a professional money lender merely by reason of occasional loans to relations, friends, and acquaintances, even if interest is charged. The burden of proof lies on the defendant to prima facie prove that the plaintiff is a professional money lender.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. This Revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Money Appeal No. 3 of 1984 by which the appeal was allowed reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Garhwa in Money Suit No. 4 of 1976.

2. Originally against the appellate judgment and decree. Second Appeal was preferred, but considering the pecuniary limit the Second Appeal was converted into a Civil Revision as per Order of this Court.

3. Plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 544.00 from the defendant on the basis of a promissory note and a receipt in support thereof dated 9.3.1973. The plaintiffs case is that on being approached by the defendant, he had lent amount of Rs. 400.00 and the defendant executed a promissory note and a receipt thereof to repay the amount of payment being made from the side of the plaintiff with an interest at the rate of Rupee 1.00 per month. Before filing of the suit, plaintiff served a Pleader notice, but the defendant did not pay any head to the said demand of the plaintiff and hence the suit.

4. In the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically stated that he is not a professional money lender and that he lent the amount to the defendant out of affinity and he had no licence under the Money Lenders Act. In the written statement, the whole case of the plaintiff has been denied together with money being taken by the defendant. It has further been stated that the plaintiff is a Money Lender and the suit is barred under Sec. 8 of the Money Lenders Act, having not maintained accounts and register as per Sec. 4 of the Act. During the course of evidence, the plaintiff had stated specifically that he did not do business of money lending and out of affinity, he had given the amount to the defendant and on two earlier occasions also, he had lent money to this defendant but the same were repaid by the defendant. He has further stated in cross examination that except the defendant he did not ever lent money to anybody else. As the defendant denied the signatures in the receipt and the promissory note, those were sent to handwriting expert at the instance of the plaintiff and the report came to the effect that the signatures in the promissory note and the receipt tally with the admitted signatures of the defendant, those documents were sent again to another handwriting expert and the contradictory report came to the effect that the signatures in the promissory note and receipt did not tally with the admitted signatures of the defendant. So, there were contradictory report by the handwriting experts. Being the expert of experts, the learned Munsif verified the signatures in the disputed documents with the admitted signature and found that in naked eye also the signatures tally with the admitted signature of the defendant. It was held in para-17 of the judgment of the trial court that the plaintiff-petitioner was not money lender by profession and as such the suit was decreed. Against the decree, appeal was preferred as mentioned above and the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree holding that the suit was not maintainable under Sec. 8 of the Money Lenders Act relying on a decision of the Court as reported in 1979 PLJR, 563. In respect of the report of handwriting experts the learned appellate court was also of the view that the learned Munsif was correct in tallying the admitted signature of the defendant with that of the disputed documents being the expert of experts.

5. Mr. Jai Prakash, appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the judgment of the appellate court is erroneous on the face of it as reliance placed on 1979 PLJR, 563 has already been over ruled by a Division Bench of this Court as reported in 1983 PLJR, page-278, wherein it has been held that a man does not become a money lender by reason of occasional loans to relations, friends and acquaintances, whether interest is charged or not, nor does he become so because on o