Isolated transactions of money-lending do not constitute a money-lending business, and a demand for refund of money lent and advanced by issuing a notice through the learned Advocate of the lender is not a condition precedent to a suit.

Mukherjee, J.

1. THIS is an appeal against judgement and decree dated September 4, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), second Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Money Suit no. 16 of 2004. The learned Judge by the impugned judgement and decree dismissed the said suit ex parte.

2. THE plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of Rs. 2, 37,690/- (Rupees two lakh thirty seven thousand six hundred ninety) only and for recovery of pendente lite interest and interest on judgment.

The plaintiff in his plaint contended that the defendants were the next door neighbour of the mother of the plaintiff and as such they were known to the plaintiffs. The defendants approached the plaintiff for loan for the marriage of the youngest daughter of the defendant No. 1. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were the sons of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff, at the instance of his mother, lent Rs. 98,000/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand) only to the defendants on or about September 17, 2002 at the residence-cum-office of the plaintiff at 64, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata. The defendant No. 1 undertook to transfer some bastu land in front of the dwelling house of the plaintiff in his native village or to transfer two bighas of agricultural land in favour of the mother of the plaintiff towards the repayment of the loan. The defendants agreed to pay interest at the rate of 18(eighteen) per centum annually in case of their failure to transfer the land in favour of the mother of the plaintiff. The defendants took two years' time to keep their commitment. The plaintiff and his mother, on several occasions, asked the defendants either to repay, the money with interest or to transfer the land as agreed, but the defendants did not pay any heed to their requests. Lastly, the mother of the plaintiff went to the house of the defendants asking for repayment, but she was insulted and threatened with dire consequences.

3. THE defendant No. 1 appeared in the suit, but ultimately did not contest the suit. THE defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in spjte of service of the summons of the suit did not, also, contest the suit.

4. THE learned Judge, however, dismissed the suit ex parte on two grounds. Firstly, the plaintiff did not possess any licence for money-lending business. Secondly, there was no notice for one month to the defendants by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff demanding repayment.

Being aggrieved the plaintiff has come before this Court in appeal.

5. THE short point in this appeal is whether the learned trial Judge was justified in dismissing a suit for recovery of money lent and advanced on the ground that the lender had no registration and licence as moneylender and that before institution of the suit no notice was issued to the defendants giving notice for one month?

6. SECTION 2(9) of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940, defines a lender as a person, who advances a loan and includes a money-lender. SECTION 2(13) of the said Act defines a money-lender. Money-lender means a person, who carries on business of money-lending in West Bengal or who has a place of such business in West Bengal, and includes a pawnee as defined in SECTION 172 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Under SECTION 2(14) of the said Act, money-lending business and business of money- lending mean the business of advancing loans either solely or in conjunction with any other business.

The Patna High Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 4 of the Bihar Money-lenders (Regulation and Transaction) Act, 1939 holds that the business of money-lending imports a notion of system, repetition and continuity, and that is a test of determining whether the plaintiff is a professional money-lender. Occasional loans to relatives, friends or acquaintances do not make the lender a professional money-lender. There must be more than occasional and disconnected loans to justify a finding that the plaintiff is a professional money-lender (Bhutnath Kumar v. Nilkantha Narayan Singh