MODI, J.—This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs 4,000 as principal and Rs. 1096 as interest total Rs. 5096 on the basis of a khata dated 10.10.67.

2. It was alleged that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 4000 from the plaintiff on 10-10 67 and executed a khata (Ex. 1) in his own hand-writing in the bahi of the plaintiff and promised to repay the same with interest at the rate of fifteen annas per cent per month.

3. Defence was of total denial. The defendant denied the execution of the khata Ex. 1 as also receipt of the consideration. Further plea taken was that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff was not holding money-lending licence at the date he advanced the money. Various other pleas were also raised but no argument was advanced in respect of them.

4. The learned Additional District Judge held that the khata (Ex. 1) was genuine and it was executed by the defendant for consideration. He further held that the plaintiff was not a money-lender within the meaning of the Rajasthan Money-lenders Act, 1963 (Act No. 1 of 1964), hereinafter called as the Act, and it was not necessary for him to obtain money-lenders licence. He accordingly decreed the suit against the appellant for Rs. 4950 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 4000. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant has come in appeal. The plaintiff-respondent has not put in appearance inspite of service.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, in the first instance, contends that there is no reliable evidence to prove execution of the khata by the defendant. This contention is devoid of force. The plaintiff has appeared in the witness-box as PW 2. He has deposed that on Asoj Badi 7, Smt. 2024 corresponding to 10.10.67 the defendant borrowed Rs. 4000 from him and executed the khata (Ex.1) in his own hand-writing. His testimony stands corroborated by PW 1 Dungarram, PW 3 Asharam PW 4 Narsharam and PW 5 Kesraram, all of whom have deposed that the defendant executed the khata in their presence. Against this overwhelming evidence, there is bare denial of the defendant. No good reason has been pointed out to me by the learned counsel for the defendant for disbelieving the testimony of all these witnesses. I am therefore, in entire agreement with the learned District Judge, and hold that the khata (Ex.1) is genuine and was executed for consideration by the defendant.

6. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the plaintiff was a moneylender on the date he advanced the loan to the defendant and since he held no moneylenders licence, no decree could be passed in his favour under sec.11 of the Act.

7. The question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff was a money-lender at the time he advanced the loan. The term money-lender is defined in clause (l0) of sec. 2 of the Act.

Again, the expression business of money-lending is defined in clause (2) of sec.2 of the Act It runs as under:

"(2) Business of money-lending means the business of advancing loans, whether or not in connection with or in addition to any other business.

It is contended by the defendants learned counsel that the plaintiff in his statement admitted that he advanced loans to others and that evidence is sufficient to hold that he was a money-lender within the meaning of clause (13) of sec. 2 of the Act. The relevant portion of the plaintiffs statement on which reliance has been placed reads as under:

euhysfMax ykbZlsUl esjk fy;k gqvk ugha gSA FkksM+k cgqr m/kkj nsrk gwWA esjs :i;s fdrus m/kkj py jgs gSaA ;kn ugha ekewyh pyrs gSaA

There is no other evidence on the point. The question arises whether it can be inferred from the above statement that the plaintiff engaged himself in the business of advancing loans. In my opinion, the answer must be in the negative. The mere fact that the money was advanced on interest on more than one occasi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document