Sant Lal vs Noria Mal

Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Senior Sub-Judge dated 17th of April, 1973 by which he reversed the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 3, which is as follows:�

Whether the plaintiff is a money-lender? If so its effect? It may be observed that the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of the sum claimed in the suit. A plea was taken that the plaintiff being a money-lender and having failed to produce the registration certificate, the suit is liable to dismissed. The trial Court came to the conclusion basing its finding on the statement of the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff had lent money on interest to Kehru, Mehru, Shambu and Kuru. Therefore, he was proved to be a money-lender. This finding was reversed by the learned first appellate Court relying on a decision of this Court in S.S.S. Amur Singh v. Kuldip Singh (1951) 53 P.L.R. 303. It may be observed that the word "money-lender" has been defined in section 2 clause (9) of the Punjab Registration of ''Money-lenders'' Act, 1938 in the following terms:�

''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, for 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.

From the definition it may be observed that a person carrying on the business of advancing loans as defined in the Act is to be termed as the ''money-lender''. It is, therefore, evident that it should be a regular business and not casual instances of lending money. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff admitted that he advanced money to the four persons as mentioned in the earlier party of the judgment, but there is evidence to hold as to during which period, these loans were advanced so as to arrive at the conclusion that it was in the regular course of business that the loans were advanced. To similar effect are the observations in S.S.S. Amar Singh''s case (supra).

The Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on a single Bench decision in Gaurishanker Vs. Magharam, wherein a similar view was taken. In the said authority, reference has been made to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kishan Lal Singhania Vs. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and another, , wherein it was held that an element of continuity and habit is essential to constitute the exercise of a profession or business.

In this view of the matter, on the evidence on the record, it is difficult to hold that the plaintiff was a money-lender within the definition of the Act. Therefore, no fault can be found with the finding of the learned first appellate Court. This revision is dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs.

Civil Misc. No. 762 CII of 1975 is also dismissed as having become infructuous.