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. 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 defendants are small farmers ? If so, are they entitled to the benefit of Sec. 10 of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1977 as alleged in para II of W. S. 4. Whether disputed Sarkhat was obtained for the purpose as alleged in paras 13 and 14 of W. S., its effect ? 5.To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ? 6. Whether plaintiff is a money lender as contemplated by law ? If so whether the suit is not maintainable for want of money lending licence ? 7. Whether defendant is a small farmer ? Its effect ? 8. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as alleged by the defendants ? 9. Whether it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have obtained a money lending licence as provided by section 18 (c) of U. P. Act 1 of 1979 ? Its effect ? 10. Whether disputed debt was borrowed for legal necessity ? If not its effect ?
(3.) ISSUES Nos. 2, 6 and 9 were discussed together holding that no licence was needed as plaintiff was not money lender and his claim was not barred under any of its provisions and the court decreed the suit. Sri R. P. Goel, for the appellants, directed the thrust of his submissions on the applicability of U. P. Regulations of Money Lending Act, 1976 as regards the plaintiff and the transaction in question. Before referring to the evidence it will be far better to have a general idea about the various provisions of the Act itself.;