High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. , K. L. Pandey and S. P. Bhargava, JJ.
JANKI BAI CHUNNILAL - Appellant
Versus
RATAN MELU - Respondents
Civil Revn. 264 Of 1960
Decided On : 09/28/1961
MONEY LENDER - REGISTRATION - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF LOAN - REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE - PRODUCTION DURING PENDENCY OF SUIT - VALIDITY OF LOAN - C. P. AND BERAR MONEY LENDERS ACT, 1934 (C. P. ACT XIV OF 1934), SEC. 11-F, 11-H.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, who is a money lender, advanced a loan to the non-applicants on the foot of a promissory note. When the applicant subsequently filed a suit to recover the amount with interest from the non-applicants they resisted it. The Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on two grounds. The applicant did not produce her certificate of registration required to be taken under Section 11-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Moneylenders Act, 1934 (hereinafter called the Act ). She did not prove that the non-applicants executed the promissory note or that there was any consideration for it.
Finding of the Court:
The suit of a money lender is not liable to be dismissed if he does not hold a registration certificate relating to the period when the money lending transactions were entered into or whether it is sufficient if the plaintiff-money lender produces during the pendency of the suit a registration certificate relating to a period subsequent to the moneylending transactions.
Issues: Whether the suit of a money lender is liable to be dismissed if he does not hold a registration certificate relating to the period when the money lending transactions were entered into or whether it is sufficient if the plaintiff-money lender produces during the pendency of the suit a registration certificate relating to a period subsequent to the moneylending transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 11-F of the Act was not enacted for the protection of persons dealing with money-lenders. Its only object appeals to be the protection of the revenue.
Final Decision: If a money-lender does not have, and cannot produce, a registration certificate covering the date on which he advanced a loan, his suit for recovery of that loan is, for that reason alone, not liable to be dismissed. It will be sufficient compliance of Section 11-H of the Act if, during the pendency of the suit, he produces a registration certificate which is valid at the time of its production.
( 1 ) ON a reference made by Tare, J. , the question referred to the Full Bench is : "whether the suit of a plaintiff money lender is liable to be dismissed if he does not hold a registration certificate relating to the period when the money lending transactions were entered into or whether it is sufficient if the plaintiff-money lender produces during the pendency of the suit a registration certificate relating to a period subsequent to the moneylending transactions. "
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are simple and may be stated in a few words. On the foot of a promissory note dated 19 March 1956, the applicant, who is a moneylender, advanced to the non-applicants a ban of:rs. 850. When the applicant subsequently filed a suit to recover the amount with interest from the non-applicants they resisted it. The Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on two grounds. The applicant did not produce her certificate of registration required to be taken under Section 11-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Moneylenders Act, 1934 (hereinafter called the Act ). She did not prove that the non-applicants executed the promissory note or that there was any consideration for it. Thereupon, the applicant filed a revision and subsequently produced her registration certificate, which she had applied for and obtained during the pendency of the suit, with an application for receiving the certificate as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code. On the evidence led in the case, Tare J. , who heard the revision, took the view that the exception of the promissory note and the consideration paid therefor were duly established. He was also inclined to admi the registration certificate as additioual evidence. But he felt that the question involved should be referred to a larger Bench for reasons which may be given in his ownwords : "the case of Shamshir Ali v. Ratanji, AIR 1952 Hyd 58 (FB), relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in Patiram v. Baliram, ILR (1953) Nag 997 : (AIR 1954 Nag 44), was subsequently overruled by another Full bench of the Hyderabad High Cuurt consisting of 5 Judges in Mahomed salem v. Umaji, (S) AIR 1955 Hyd 113 (FB ). A Division Bench of the nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Mudholkar T. (as he then was) and Datar J. in Wasudco Bhairulal v. Ramchandrarao, 1958 nag LJ 294, expressed the opinion that the Division Bench view of the nagpur High Court did not correctly represent the legal position in view of the fact that the former Full Bench view of the Hyderabad High Court had been overruled by the later Full Bench of the same High Court. As such, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court cast a doubt on the correctness of the Division Bench view of the Nagpur High Court, although the reasons for the decision were based on the earlier view iavolving particular provisions of the Bombay Act. On account of this fact, I feel it necessary that this High Court should express its opinion in view of the fact that the very basis of the earlier view of a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court disappeared on account of the later Full Bench view of the Hyderabad High Court, and particularly when a doubt is cast on the correctness of the decision of this Court by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court with reference to Section 11-H of the C. P. Moneylenders Act, 1934. "
( 3 ) IT would appear from the order of reference that this Court considered the question how before us in several cases. The cursus curiae of the Court is expressed in ILR. (1953) Nag 997 : (AIR 1934 Nag 44), in the following words : "it will be clear from all this discussion that Section 11-F applies to the business of moneylending and not to an individual itransaction of leading money and that the condition is attached and the penalty is imposed for the convenience of collection of the revenue, and the legislature did not declare an individual transaction of moneylending made by the moneylender who had not obtained a regist
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.