IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

273 Date of decision : 20.01.2026 Lichhman (since deceased) through his LRs ...... Appellant versus Suresh Kumar (since deceased) through his LRs ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. The plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, which includes principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and interest of Rs.1,00,000/-. Suit is based on promissory note.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendant denying execution of promissory note and receipt claiming both of them to be an act of fraud. Regarding findings on issue No.1, Court of First Instance found that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of promissory note and the defendant failed to prove the plea of fraud and misrepresentation as pleaded.

3. The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with respect to plaintiff being in money lending business without possessing due license. This issue has already been dealt by this Court in RSA No.1711 of 2024, titled as ‘Kitab Singh vs. Raj Singh’ decided on 27.05.2025, wherein it has been held as under:-

“6. Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 was enacted with an intent to regulate the business of money lending. Section 2(9) defines, ‘money lenders. The same reads as under : -

“Money-lender" means a person, or a firm carrying on the business of advancing loans as defined in this Act, and shall include the legal representatives and the successors-in- interest whether by inheritance, assignment or otherwise, of such person or firm; provided that nothing in this definition shall apply to –

(a) a person who is the legal representative or is by inheritance the successor-in-interest of the estate of a deceased money-lender together with all his rights and liabilities; provided that such person only –

(i) winds up the estate of such money-lender;

(ii) realises outstanding loans;

(iii) does not renew any existing loan, nor advance any fresh loan;

(b) a bona fide assignment by a money-lender of a single loan to any one other than the wife or husband of such assignor, as the case may be, or any person, who is descended from a common grand-father of the assignor.

7. The aforesaid provisions came for interpretation before Division Bench of this Court in Amar Singh v. Kuldip Singh AIR 1952 (P&H) 207 wherein the Division Bench has held as under : -

“8. The only point seriously argued by Mr. Sibbal was the point that the plaintiff was a money-lender. Mr. Sibbal argued that it had been proved by evidence on the record that the plaintiff did money-lending systematically and continuously and it was the system and the continuity in his transactions which showed that he was carrying on business of advancing loans so as to come within the definition of a money-lender given in Clause (9) of Section 2 of the Punjab Registration of Money-lenders' Act III of 1938. Mr. Sibfaal quoted Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 23 page 181 and said it was the system and continuity in money-lending transactions Which made a person a money-lender. He cited a number of authorities which, according to him, supported him in the finding to be given in this case that the plaintiff was money-lender. One of the authorities cited by him was 'Bonnard v. Dott', (1905) 92 1. T 822. In that case Kekewich J. said in one part of his judgment:

"Now, it appears from the evidence that the defendant has lent money again and again, and he writes letters in accordance with the usage of the money Jending class as though to the manner born, but that of itself, of course, is not sufficient to constitute him a money lender within the Act. To bring him within that Act he must be not merely a man who lends money, bub under Section 6 of the Act a man whose business is that of money lending."

In another