Patna High Court. Shridhar Singh vs Manu Singh on 5 September, 2007. Author: S Hussain Bench: S Hussain JUDGMENT S.N. Hussain, J.



Similar documents
District : Lakhimpur. IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE : LAKHIMPUR : AT NORTH LAKHIMPUR.

MONEY SUIT NO. 249/2000

MONEY SUIT NO.05 OF 2011

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, NAGAON.

Civil Revision No.38/2007

HIGH COURT FORM NO.(J) 2. HEADING OF JUDGMENT ON ORIGINAL APPEAL. IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, SONITPUR AT TEZPUR. MONEY APPEAL NO.

Bench: A Bhangale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 467 /2009. Smt.Nanda w/o Dharam Nandanwar

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT DIBRUGARH. Money Appeal Case No. 1/2011.

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)

N.I. case No. 15/09 U/S 138 of NI Act

THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No of 2012) VERSUS

HIGH COURT FORM (J) 3 HEADING OF JUDGEMENT IN APPEAL. Dist. Cachar. In the Court of Addl. District Judge, Cachar, Silchar.

Court of Appeals of Ohio

TEDDY YOMENA vs S W MOTORS I 227/97

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9516 of 2010) VERSUS JUDGMENT

Number 31 of 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Preliminary and General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 442 OF :Versus: J U D G M E N T

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2007 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE & ANR. ETC...

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (CHAPTER 179, SECTION 254) MERCHANT SHIPPING (SHIPPING CASUALTIES, APPEALS AND REHEARINGS) RULES

Suits by or Against Persons in Military Service

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Workmen's Compensation Act FAO No.268/2004 RESERVED ON :

Rules for Bankruptcy Cases, B.E (1999) Translation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT,1987 FAO No. 507/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 8th January, 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM

How To Process A Small Claims Case In Anarizonia

2012 IL App (1st) U. No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No Filed May 20, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A.

Defendant, by and through his attorneys LENOIR LAW FIRM, answering the complaint of plaintiff, upon information and belief,

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING YOUR MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT

Court of Appeals of Ohio

FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE

Chapter 14:14 MONEYLENDING AND RATES OF INTEREST ACT. Acts 9/1930, 25/1948,59/1961,6/1967, 7/1972, 5/1981, 30/1984, 22/2001; 16/2004. R.G.N. 554/1962.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO OF 2015)

SMALL CLAIMS RULES. (d) Record of Proceedings. A record shall be made of all small claims court proceedings.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SPARKASSE BREGENZ BANK AG. and. In The Matter of ASSOCIATED CAPITAL CORPORATION

HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN CONSUMER CASES : BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, GOLAGHAT. Consumer Protection Case No. 2/2010.

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Financial Services (Moneylending)

FILED August 17, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

AN BILLE UM CHIONTÓIRÍ A ATHSHLÁNÚ 2007 REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL Mar a tionscnaíodh As initiated ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Judgment delivered on: 8th January, 2014 MAC.APP.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO

2013 IL App (3d) U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

Supreme Court Civil Supplementary Rules 2014

2015 IL App (1st) U. No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8155 OF 2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9030 OF 2013 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

THIERRY P. DELOS : BK No Debtor Chapter 7 : STACIE L. DELOS, Plaintiff : v. : A.P. No

The Court of Protection Rules 2007

T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S G UIDE T O C O URT

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION

Any civil action exempt from arbitration by action of a presiding judge under ORS

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA Q.B. FAMILY LAW PRACTICE NOTE 3 FAMILY LAW CONFERENCES. (For matters under Part 12 of the Alberta Rules of Court)

RULE 49 OFFER TO SETTLE

~INAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE

Civil Suits: The Process

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.382/2015 Date of Reserve: Date of Decision: versus

JAMAICA THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN GODFREY THOMPSON APPELLANT

Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS

Debt Claim Petition Packet

H o w t o W r i t e a J u d g e m e n t

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION

Nos , , cons. Order filed February 18, 2011 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 28, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA M. GENE FIELDER.PLAINTIFF. ANSUMANA MARENAH (Trading as Julakay Fast Food Restaurant)..

BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BARPETA

Sri Homen Konwar.

v. VERIFIED ANSWER TO FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 FAO 53/2012 Judgment delivered on:

Case 3:07-cv L Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 6 PageID 979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: LAKHIMPUR : AT NORTH LAKHIMPUR

Information or instructions: Defendant s Cross-claims and counterclaims PREVIEW

2015 IL App (3d) U. Order filed February 5, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015

2015 IL App (5th) U NO IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

Illinois Official Reports

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

United States Court of Appeals

11 U.S.C. 109(e) Liquidated Debt Non-contingent debt. 7/24/95 PSH Unpublished

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Limited Action Suits

The Enforceability of Mediated Settlement Agreements. By: Thomas J. Smith The Law Offices of Thomas J. Smith San Antonio, Texas

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

ESTATE OF JOHN JENNINGS. WILLIAM CUMMING et al. entered in the Superior Court (Waldo County, R. Murray, J.) finding George liable

BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BARPETA

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, S.C.O. NO , SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.285 of 2003

RULES OF THE TAX APPEAL COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

Illinois Official Reports

Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Orissa in the Thirty first year of the

JUSTICE KARNEZIS delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Sheldon Wernikoff, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION : : : : : : : O R D E R

2015 IL App (1st) U. No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Transcription:

Patna High Court Shridhar Singh vs Manu Singh on 5 September, 2007 Author: S Hussain Bench: S Hussain JUDGMENT S.N. Hussain, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the Judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below allowing the money appeal and reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court by which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed. 2. Money Suit No. 24 of 1982 was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant for realisation of Rs. 4,993.92 with interest (both pendentelite and future) and cost from defendant No. 1 (original respondent No. 1) claiming that at the instance of defendant No. l, the plaintiff gave him a loan of Rs. 3,672.00 for purchase of bullocks and for repair of his house and in token thereof defendant No. 1 executed a hand note on 21.06.1979 in favour of the plaintiff. He further claimed that the said loan was only an accommodation loan and he was not in money lending business. It was also asserted that defendant No. 2 undertook to repay the said amount with interest but inspite of plaintiff's demand and lapse of a long time the loan remained unpaid, hence the plaintiff had to file the said suit for recovery of the above mentioned principal amount of loan with interest totally amounting to Rs. 4,993.92. Defendant-respondent No. 2, who was the nephew of defendant-respondent No. 1, was subsequently added as defendant No. 2 in the suit after defendant-respondent No. 1 gifted his property to him. 3. Defendant No. 1 contested the claim of the plaintiff and asserted that mandatory provisions of the Bihar Money Lenders Act 1974 (Bihar Act XXII of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act' for the sake of brevity) were not complied by the plaintiff, although he and his father were professional money lenders, who cannot advance any accommodation loan and that his claim was also not maintainable under the provisions of the Debt Relief Act, because defendant No. 1 was not a scheduled debtor as he had no land of his own. He completely denied that he ever took any money as loan from the plaintiff or his father, or that he ever executed any hand note in plaintiff's favour and claimed that the entire allegation is false and concocted. He further claimed that the hand note is a fabricated document and the plaintiff might have obtained his signature in his intoxicated condition on blank paper for creating such a document collusively and fraudulently. Defendant No. 2 also filed his written statement contesting the plaintiff's claim on the same grounds and further asserting that he had no concern with any such loan or payment as he was not a party to the alleged loan or hand note. 4. Learned Munsif 3rd Court, Arrah decreed the money suit and the claim of plaintiff by his judgment and decree dated 26.08.1987 finding that the evidence proved that defendant No. 1 had taken loan from the plaintiff and even the witnesses of the defendant did not deny this fact and that the khatians of revisional survey (Ext.3 and 3/A) proved that plaintiff and his father had separate lands and the plaintiff had given accommodation loan to defendant No. 1. Accordingly the learned trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount mentioned in the hand note i.e. Rs. 3,672.00 from defendant No. 1. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1296961/ 1

5. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial court the defendants filed Money Appeal No. 10 of 1987 which was contested by the plaintiff who also filed a cross- objection. The said appeal was finally allowed by the learned Additional District Judge 8th Court, Arrah (Bhojpur) by his judgment and decree dated 02.03.1989 after arriving at the following findings: (a) The statement of father of plaintiff, namely P. W. 1, that he was present at the time of execution of the hand note was not acceptable as the said statement was not proved either by any material or by the plaintiff or the scribe and hence P.W.1 was not a competent witness. (b) The evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant fully proved that the plaintiff and his father were doing joint money lending business which fact is corroborated from the deposition of P.W.I himself as well as from the defendants witnesses. (c) The plaintiff failed to prove that defendant No. 1 had executed the alleged hand note by putting his left thumb impression on 21.6.1979 in token of loan of Rs. 3,672.00. (d) The plaintiff had failed to prove by any material whatsoever that defendant No. 2 was in any way benefited by the aforesaid loan or had any concern with the same. (e) Admittedly there is no license produced or proved in this case as required by the Act and hence the claim in the suit is not maintainable. 6. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower appellate court the plaintiff filed the instant Second Appeal which was admitted on 13.12.1989 and this Court referred the matter to a Division Bench for final hearing after framing the following substantial question of law: Whether casual money lending is saved from the restriction imposed by Section 8 of the Money Lenders Act This question was in respectful disagreement with the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Baijnath Prasad and Anr. v. Harnandan Mahto and Anr. by which the Division Bench relying upon the law, as it stood prior to the amendment, had extended the definition of the word 'Money Lender' read with Section 8 of the New Money Lenders' Act, 1974. 7. However, when this second appeal came up before an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 10.1.2007, their Lordships directed this case to be listed before a Bench of a Single Judge after obtaining the permission from Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the basis of the following observations: This matter has come up before this Court on reference made by Single Judge of this Court dated 13.12.1989. It appears that learned Single Judge of this Court showing disagreement with the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baijnath Prasad and Anr. v. Harnandan Mahto and Anr., referred this case for adjudication before a Division Bench itself. The ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Baijnath Prasad and Anr. (supra) since was passed by a Bench of this Court was binding upon the learned Single Judge and in our considered view, there would have been no occasion to disagree with the same. This is the requirement of judicial Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1296961/ 2

propriety and precedent of this Court. Shridhar Singh vs Manu Singh on 5 September, 2007 8. After the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the matter has been placed before this Court for final hearing of the instant Second Appeal. In the instant second appeal, the only question which has been formulated by this Court at the time of admission of the instant Second Appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that whether casual money lending is saved from the restriction imposed by Section 8 of the new Act. The said question was framed in disagreement with the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Baijnath Prasad and Anr. v. Harnandan Mahto and Anr., as the learned Single Judge had observed that the said Division Bench relying upon the law, as it stood prior to the amendment, had extended the definition of the word 'money lender' beyond the definition in the present Act, whereas the instant matter arises out of the new definition of 'money lender' read with Section 8 of the new Act. 9. In the instant second appeal the order of the Division Bench dated 10.01.2007 has specifically held that the ratio laid down by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in case of Baijnath Prasad and Anr (supra) was binding upon the learned Single Judge and there was no occasion to disagree with the same as per the requirement of judicial propriety and precedence of this Court. In the said circumstances, it has to be considered at this stage as to whether the question of law formulated in the instant Second Appeal vide order dated 13.12.1989 can be entertained in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baijnath Prasad and Anr (supra). 10. In essence now this Court has to decide as to whether the learned court below has correctly decided the matter under the new Act. It is not in dispute that the alleged loan was taken and the alleged hand note was executed in the year 1979 after coming into force of the aforesaid Act in the year 1975 and the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was also filed much thereafter in the year 1982. Hence the instant case is clearly governed by the said Act. 11. The main dispute is with respect to the term 'money lender' which is defined under Section 2(k) of the Act as follows: 2(k) Money Lender means a person advancing loan and shall include a Hindu undivided family and the legal representatives and successors in interest, whether by inheritance, assignment or otherwise of a person who advances a loan; The next provision connected with the aforementioned question of law is Section 8 of the Act which reads as follows: 8. Suit for recovery of loan maintainable only by registered money lenders.- No court shall entertain a suit filed by a money lender for recovery of loan advanced by him after the commencement of this Act, unless such money lender was registered as such under this Act or the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938 (Bihar Act III of 1938) at the time when the loan was advanced. 12. The learned court of appeal below after considering the pleadings of the parties and the points raised by them came to several findings of facts and the learned lower appellate court being final Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1296961/ 3

courts of facts, the said findings cannot be legally challenged in the instant second appeal. In the said circumstances, the only question framed in the instant second appeal for being considered at the time of final hearing is the maintainability of the plaintiff's claim in view of the specific provision of the Act. No other point has been raised on behalf of the appellant. 13. While considering the aforesaid point the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Baijnath Prasad and Anr. (supra) had specifically found that the provision of Section 2(k) of the new Act corresponds with Section 2(g) of the old Bihar Money Lenders Act of 1938 (Bihar Act III of 1938) as modified by the Act of 1939 and the difference in the language of the two statutory provisions is only this that in Section 2(g) of the Old Act, "Money Lender" has been defined as meaning "a person which advances a loan", whereas in the New Act it has been defined as meaning "a person advancing a loan", hence the said Division Bench in its considered view found that there is no difference in the spirit and the substance of the two definitions irrespective of slight grammatical variation in the participles used. 14. The provision of Sections 4 and 5 of the new Act are mutatis mutandis same as in the old Act as there is absolutely no difference in the language used in the two corresponding provisions. Hence, the said Division Bench held that there is no distinction between a series of decisions of this Court having a bearing on the question at hand, nor there is any change much less any substantial change in the language of the relevant provisions except that Section 8 has been substituted in the new Act. 15. It may be noted that Section 2(k) of the new Act read with Section 8 of the new Act have to be considered in the light of the language of Sections 4 and 5 of the new Act with respect to the term " Money Lender". In that regard, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in case of Bijaylal Agarwalla v. Prematha Nath Dutta reported in 1967 Patna LR 259, in which it had been held that for the purposes of registration under Section 4 of the old Act the word 'Money Lender" has to be used not in terms of the definition as provided under Section 2(g) of that Act, but in the sense it appears to have been used in the context of Section 5 of that Act and in that case, the term "Money Lender" used in Section 4 of the old Act, which is the same as Section 4 of the new Act, means only those money lenders who are professionals or carrying on money lending as business. 16. Another plea has been taken that even if the loan was casual and accommodatory, it had been advanced on interest and hence it would come under the purview of the new Act. But this plea also cannot be entertained as a man does not become a money lender by reason of occasional loan to relations, friends or acquaintances, whether interest be charged or not, as charity and kindliness are not the bases of usury for becoming a money lender. There must be more than occasional and disconnected loans in business of money lending which imports the notion of system, repetition and continuity. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in case of Sano Kasinath Chaudhuri v. Pattito Sabuto reported in AIR 1942 Patna 384. 17. Considering the entire matter as aforesaid, the learned Division Bench of this Court in case of Baijnath Prasad and Anr. (supra) decided the issue and held that the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Newa Lal Rai v. Mahendra Rai reported in 1979 BBCJ 764 does not lay down a correct proposition of law and has to be overruled, only more so since the bar of non-maintainability Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1296961/ 4

of the suit on the ground of the plaintiff being not a registered money lender had never been canvassed in the two courts of facts below nor had it been pleaded. 18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the settled principles of law this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions and hence I do not find any merit in the instant second appeal, nor do I find that the substantial question of law framed in this appeal earlier is really a substantial question of law which can be entertained. Furthermore the judicial propriety and the precedence also requires that the matter already decided by an earlier Division Bench of this Court has to be followed by learned Single Judge covering the same point. In the said circumstances, this second appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed but without cost. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1296961/ 5