NOOR MOHAMMAD Vs. HARIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision has been made by the plaintiff whose suit for recovery of a certain sum of money on a hand-note has been dismissed. This application was at first placed before his Lordship the Chief Justice, but has been referred to a Division Bench by him.

(2.) The plaintiff is a registered money-lender. On 10-1-1948, the pro forma defendant, namely, Amir Chand Khan Wall Mohammad Khan Wazir Mohammad Khan Gul Mohammad Khan, a registered firm of money-lenders, advanced a sum of Rs. 230/- to the defendant, namely, Hari-das Banerjee, at the rate of Rs. 107- per cent, per month on the basis of the handnote in question. On 15-12-1950 the pro forma defendant endorsed the promissory note, the handnote in question, in favour of the plaintiff and delivered the same to him. The plaintiff brought the present suit for recovery of Rs. 313, principal, plus interest at 12 per cent, per annum. The defendant pleaded the bar of Section 4, Bihar Money-Lenders (Regulation of Transactions) Act, 1939. It has been alleged by the defendant that the pro forma defendant was not registered under the Bihar Money-Lenders Act at the time the loan was advanced and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The Court below has given effect to this defence.

(3.) Mr. Chatterji has contended the following points on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner (1) that it has not been shown that the plaintiff is not a casual money-lender, that is to say, the money-lending transactions of the pro forma defendant did not exceed Rs. 500 in the year; (2) that, the plaintiff being a registered money-lender under the Act, the suit has been wrongly dismissed by the Court below; (2a) Section 4 of the Act does not apply to this suit because in terms the bar applies to a person who has advanced a loan himself and, the plaintiff not being such a person, Section 4 had no application to his suit; (3) that the plaintiff is a 'holder in due course' under Section 9, Negotiable Instruments Act, and as such he was entitled to a decree; (4) two out of the four brothers mentioned as pro forma defendants had in fact been registered under the Money-Lenders Act in 1946, and, therefore, the suit by the plaintiff was not liable to be dismissed; and (5) that, in any view of the matter, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the consideration money.