High Court Of Jharkhand
N.N. Tiwari, J.
Shiv Shankar Prasad Barnwal - Appellants
Vs.
Deo Nandan Prasad Barnwal - Respondents
S.A.No. 336 of 2005
Decided on: Sep 09,2010
Money Suit - Friendly Loan - Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure - [Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and awarded interest at a reasonable rate on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, and also for the period from the date of the decree till the date of payment at a rate not exceeding 6% per annum. The court found no error in the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a money suit for the realization of a sum of Rs. 65294 from the defendant, claiming it was a friendly loan. The defendant contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's claim and alleging that the plaintiff had no money lending license.
Finding of the Court:
The Lower Appellate Court thoroughly discussed the facts and evidence and found in favor of the plaintiff, stating that no money lending license was necessary for a friendly loan and awarded interest in accordance with Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff had given a friendly loan to the defendant and whether the court had the jurisdiction to award interest beyond 6% per annum without a bilateral agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a single and isolated transaction like a friendly loan, a money lending license was not necessary, and the court had the discretion to award interest at a reasonable rate in accordance with Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court.
1. THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree of the learned 1st Additional District Judge Bokaro passed in Money Appeal No. 3 of 2003, whereby learned Lower Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge-I, Bokaro passed in Money Suit No. 10 of 1992.
2. THE defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff had filed Money Suit No. 10 of 1992 for a decree for realization of a sum of Rs. 65294/- from the defendant.
3. PLAINTIFF's case was that he had given friendly loan of Rs. 47,200/- to the defendant, as he was in dire need of money for establishing business of wholesale tea leaves for his son. The plaintiff had advanced the said friendly loan through account payee cheque on 18th May, 1990. The (defendant had assured to return the amount within a month. The cheque given by the plaintiff was encashed by the defendant and the money was utilized. The defendant, however, did not keep his promise and failed to repay the loan amount. The plaintiff had, thereafter, served a legal notice on 7th August. 1990, but even thereafter the amount was not paid. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed the said suit for realization of the said amount with interest.
4. THE defendant had contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's claim. It was stated that the plaintiff has no money lending licence and is not entitled lo file suit for recovery of the amount. THE suit is filed for oblique purpose. THE defendant claimed that the plaintiff himself had taken Rs. 52,200/- from him for purchasing a piece of land from one Smt. Nihur Bala Paul. THE plaintiff returned that money by giving a cheque of Rs. 47,200/-and Rs. 5,000/- in cash. He totally negated the plaintiffs case of giving him Rs. 47,200/-.
Learned Trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It was, inter alia, held that the plaintiff had no money lending licence. He failed to establish that he had given loan to the defendant. The plaintiff has also claimed interest and damages for which there was no agreement.
5. AGGRIEVED by the said decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Judge, Bokaro, being Money Appeal No. 3 of 2003 The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bokaro by the impugned judgment and decree.
6. LEARNED Lower Appellate Court thoroughly discussed and appraised the facts and evidences on record and came to the finding that the plaintiff and the defendant were in friendly term since long. No money lending licence was necessary to advance friendly loan, particularly when there was a single and isolated transaction without any motive for earning interest. It was not covered by the provisions of Money Lending Act. The plaintiff established his case by adducing cogent and satisfactory evidences. He also considered the plaintiff's claim of interest in accordance with Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for granting interest in such cases at the just and reasonable rate on the decreed principal amount together with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree. He decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. LEARNED Lower Appellate Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and also granted interest in accordance with the provision of Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the learned Lower Appellate Court has committed serious error of law in reversing the finding of the learned Trial Court, particularly the finding recorded on Issue No. 3, as also in awarding interest on the decreed amount without any such agreement between the parties. It has been submitted that the learned Lower Appellate Court has awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to the date of the decree and interest @ 6% per annum on the decr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.