N. N. Mithal, J.

1. Defendants' appeal raises just a short question though of considerable importance regarding applicability of the provision of The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976 to money lent by any one who decides not to carry on such business after the enforcement of the Act.

2. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of money due on a loak advanced on 20-8-1975 re-payable with 12% interest. The plaintiff also claimed that he was not a money lender either from before the Act or thereafter as he was mainly an agriculturist.

The defendants denied these allegations and contended that as a money lender he was not competent to sue in the absence of requisite licence under the Act, besides this he had failed to submit account also to the concerned authorities. Some other pleas were also raised but these are no longer relevent for the appeal nor any was raised.

3. Following ten issues were struck by the trial court:-

1. Whether defendant borrowed Rs. 20000.00 on 12-6-1975 on interest at the rate of Re. 1/- per cent per month and executed sarkhat in question in plaintiff's favour ?

2. Whether plaintiff is a money lender ? If so, its effect ?

3. Whether d