The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of compliance with the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974, specifically Sec. 8, for maintaining a suit for loan recovery.

S.N.Hussain, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below allowing the money appeal and reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court by which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed.

2. Money Suit No. 24 of 1982 was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant for realisation of Rs. 4,993.92 with interest (both pendente lite and future) and cost from defendant no. 1 (original respondent no. 1) claiming that at the instance of defend- ant no. 1, the plaintiff gave him a loan of Rs. 3,672.00 for purchase of bullocks and for repair of his house and in token thereof defendant no. 1 executed a hand note on 21.6.1979 in favour of the plaintiff. He further claimed that the said loan was only an accommodation loan and he was not in money lending business. It was also asserted that defendant no. 2 undertook to repay the said amount with interest but in spite of plaintiffs demand and lapse of a long time the loan remained unpaid, hence the plaintiff had to file the said suit for recovery of the abovementioned principal amount of loan with interest totally amounting to Rs. 4,993.92. Defendant-respondent no. 2, who was the nephew of defendant-respondent no. 1, was subsequently added as defendant no. 2 in the suit after de- fendant-respodent no. 1 gifted his property to him.

3. Defendant no. 1 contested the claim of the plaintiff and asserted that mandatory provisions of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 (Bihar Act XXII of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the new Act for the sake of brevity) were not complied by the plaintiff, although he and his father were professional money lenders, who cannot advance any accommodation loan and that his claim was also not maintainable under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act, because defendant no. 1 was not a scheduled debtor as he had no land of his own. He completely denied that he ever took any money as loan from the plaintiff or his father, or that he ever executed any hand note in plaintiffs favour and claimed that the entire allegation is false and concocted. He further claimed that the hand note is a fabricated document and the plaintiff might have obtained his signature in his intoxicated condition on blank paper for creating such a document collusively and fraudulently. Defendant No. 2 also filed his written statement contesting the plaintiffs claim on the same grounds and further asserting that he had no concern with any such loan or payment as he was not a party to the alleged loan or hand note.

4. Learned Munsif 3rd Court, Arrah decreed the money suit and the claim of plaintiff by his judgment and decree dated 26.8.1987 finding that the evidence proved that defendant no. 1 had taken loan from the plaintiff and even the witnesses of the defendant did not deny this fact and that the khatians of revisional survey (Exts. 3 and 3A) proved that plaintiff and his father had separate lands and the plaintiff had given accommodation loan to defendant no. 1. Accordingly the learned trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount mentioned in the hand note i.e. Rs. 3,672.00 from defendant no. 1.

5. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial court the defendants filed Money Appeal No. 10 of 1987 which was contested by the plaintiff who also filed a cross-objection. The said appeal was finally allowed by the learned Additional District Judge 8th Court, Arrah (Bhojpur) by his judgment and decree dated 2.3.1989 after arriving at the following findings:

(a) The statement of father of plaintiff, namely P.W. 1, that he was present at the time of execution of the hand note was not acceptable as the said statement was not proved either by any material or by the plaintiff or the scribe and hence P.W. 1 was not a competent witness.

(b) The evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant fully proved that the plaintiff and his father were doing joint money lending business