JUDGMENT :

1) This is plaintiff's first appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC arising out of judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit No. 01-B/2014 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 300,000/- against defendants has been dismissed.

2) For convenience plaintiff and defendants are termed as it exists before the trial Court.

3) The plaintiff has filed civil suit for recovery of Rs. 300,000/- along with interest against legal representatives of Manoharlal Moolwani namely Bharti Moolwani, Kamal Moolwani, Rekha Moolwani and Sumit Moolwani. It has been contended that plaintiff and Manoharlal Moolwani were known to each other. Since, late Manoharlal has some financial crunch he had requested the plaintiff to provide him financial assistance.

He assured him that he will return the entire amount with interest. Considering the circumstances and the fact that they were known to each other, he gave Rs. 3,00,000/- on 20.07.2006 to Manoharlal and as a security the Manoharlal handed over a cheque valued Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn in State Bank of India and also written promissory note. But all of a sudden, Manoharlal met an accident and died on 08.08.2006. Thereafter on 27.09.2006 the plaintiff informed about the promissory note with regard to the money transaction taken place between plaintiff and the deceased, and requested for returning the money, but since they have not returned the money, he submitted the cheque in bank on 04.01.2007 for clearance, the said cheque was returned by the bank. He informed about the defaulting of the cheque to defendants No. 1 and 2, but when even then they did not return the money, he filed instant civil suit before learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari for recovery of the amount against the respondents.

4) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint contending that the deceased did not take amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff. In fact, the deceased was a member of Becee which the plaintiff was arranging, therefore, he had given cheque to the plaintiff to maintain membership in the Becee. After death of the deceased the plaintiff intends to encash the same. It is further submitted that their father, the deceased was running a bakery and they had never financial crunch. It is emphatically denied that the plaintiff has given any information about the money transaction with the deceased. His father expired on 08.01.2006 thereafter the plaintiff has deposited the cheque which is totally illegal and it falls within commission of offence. After death of account holder, the account operation stops immediately. This fact was known to him still he has submitted the cheque which is nothing but fraud against the dead person. It is further contended that the plaintiff has filed various false cases for recovery of amount before the courts against other Becee members also namely Ramchand Lalwani, Vasudev Keshwani, Kanhaiyalal Badhwani and Mohan Mandhan and have also kept undated cheques from them. It is further contended that the plaintiff is a money lender but he has no licence/registration, therefore, would pray for dismissal of the suit.

5) Defendants No. 3 and 4 are minors. They have filed separate written statement denying the contentions made in the plaint contending that the facts are not known to them and would pray for dismissal of the suit.

6) The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 10 issues. The defendants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte, therefore, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC on 05.05.2010 for setting aside exparte proceeding. Learned trial Court after recording of the evidence allowed the said application on 01.02.2012. The plaintiff moved an application for amendment in the plaint, which was allowed and the defendants were given liberty to amend their written statement. The plaintiff filed his