M. R. MALLICK, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah, in Title Appeal No. 251/79 affirming those of the Ld. Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah, in Title Suit No. 20/76.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case may briefly stayed as follows : the respondents as plaintiffs brought the above title suit under section 37 A and section 38 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act for accounts and for declaration of the amount due against the present appellant. The respondents as plaintiffs alleged in the p1aint that they took loan of Rs. 1500/- from the defendant on 16. 5. 74 and another loan of Rs. 2000/- on 12. 8. 74 keeping the property being holding No. 35, Girish Ghosh Road, Howrah, as security. To keep the transaction within the ambit of law in force two sale deeds were executed on the above two dates and on those two dates two deed of agreement for reconveyance were executed by the present appellant in favour of the present respondents. The plaintiffs claimed that they had made payment towards the said loan on different instalments. But as the defendant did not agree to execute any deed of reconveyance in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have brought the present suit for a declaration as regards the amount due and for passing appropriate relief to which the plaintiffs may be entitled.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the suit contending inter alia that the properties in suit were purchased by the defendant by the two sale deeds dated 16. 5. 75 and 12. 8. 74 for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 4,700/- respectively and that the deeds of agreement for reconveyance are all void and not enforceable under the law. The defendant also denied that there was any loan transaction between the parties or that any such loan was repaid. During the pendency of the suit one of the plaintiffs, namely, plaintiff No. 1 filed a petition for compromise through another Advocate with the defendants.

( 4 ) THE Ld. trial Judge on considering the evidence on record refused the record the compromise entered into between the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendants found the transaction to be a loan in substance and declared that the total amount due including interest was Rs. 9,700/- and directed the present appellant to execute a deed of reconveyance in favour of the respondents on receiving Rs. 9,500/ -.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved, the present appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. District Judge, Howrah, and the Id. Addl. District Judge, Howrah, affirmed the above finding of the Id. Trial Judge but he modified the judgment and decree of the trial Judge directing the present respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 9,500/- in six equal annual instalments commencing from Asar 1387 B. S. and in default of any such instalment, the defendant was given the liberty to apply for making the decree final.

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved, the defendant has moved this Court in second appeal.

( 7 ) BEFORE us the appeal has been contested by the plaintiffs-respondents. The Id. Advocate for the appellant has urged mainly four points, namely,- (I)both the courts below committed a great illegality in refusing to record the compromise between the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant; (ii)both the courts below committed a great illegality by not considering the appellant's documents regarding the valuation of the suit property and illegally rejecting the same as not relevant; (iii)both the courts below committed a great illegality by coming to the finding that the transaction was loan in substance ; and (iv)that the direction given by the Ld. Trial Judge for execution of the deed of reconveyance was clearly outside the purview of section 38 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act and consequently, the said direction being illegal, is liable to be deleted from the judgment and decree of the court below.

( 8 ) AS regards the first point, namely, as to whether the Ld. Judge committed any illegality in refusing to record the compromis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document