RSA No.2551 of 1987 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2551 of 1987(O&M) Date of decision: 3.3.2010 Niranjan Singh ............Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh .........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Ms. Simran Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. --- ALOK SINGH, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.3.1986 passed by the learned trial Court, thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.20468/-, and judgment and decree dated 24.3.1987, affirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that Niranjan Singh appellant instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs.20,468/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 23.3.1982 allegedly executed by Mohinder Singh respondent on receipt of Rs.15,050/- from the appellant agreeing to return the amount alongwith the interest at the RSA No.2551 of 1987 (O&M) 2 rate of Rs.1.56% per month. The appellant claimed interest of Rs.5,418/- at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.15,050/-. 3. The respondent, however, contested his claim. He took up the plea that he never executed any pronote nor did he borrow any amount from the appellant on 23.3.1982 and the documents, if any, were forged. He claimed to have borrowed two small amounts from the appellant five years earlier. He also took up the plea that he has a weakness for liquor. The appellant is a notorious money lender and he exploits the weakness of his victims and becomes friendly and thick with his clients and is always ready to offer drinks to his clients. The respondent further averred that under the influence of intoxication the appellant might have obtained his signatures on some document which was never executed by him as he was never in need of money and that these were fictitious documents and the pronote was without consideration. The respondent further took up the plea that the appellant is a professional money lender but he does not hold any valid licence and as such the suit is not competent. 4. On these pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.15,050/- from the plaintiff on 23.3.1982 and executed pronote and receipt in lieu of it?OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the pronote and receipt is without consideration?OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender and does not hold any valid licence. If so, its RSA No.2551 of 1987 (O&M) 3 effect?OPD. 4. Relief.” 5. Learned trial Court while discussing issue No.1 has recorded finding that execution of pronote and receipt is proved. However, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by holding that plaintiff is a professional money lender and does not have any valid licence, hence, suit is not maintainable. 6. In the first appeal filed by the plaintiff, learned first Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the learned trial Court that pronote and receipt stands proved, however, recorded finding of fact that plaintiff failed to prove payment of Rs.15,050/- to the defendant as loan/advance. Learned first Appellate Court in paragraph No.6 of the impugned judgment has record clear cut findings of fact as under:- “In order to show that no money passed under the pronote, the respondent appearing as DW2 stated that he never took any money much less Rs.15,050/- from the appellant on 23.3.1982. He stated that on 6 or 7 years earlier he had taken Rs.1500/- which he returned. According to the plaintiff/appellant his weakness is that he is fond of liquor. Sarja Singh, DW3, the deed writer has referred to large number of similar transactions of advancement of loan by Niranjan Singh plaintiff to various persons and as already referred above this evidence is not of conclusive nature which has not been sought to be rebutted by the plaintiff/appellant. DW4 is Sucha Singh who also stated that the plaintiff deals in money lending. He says that he has taken a loan of RSA No.2551 of 1987 (O&M) 4 Rs.900/- from the plaintiff but the plaintiff converted the amount to Rs.12,000/- and then filed a suit for recovery. He also stated that the plaintiff/appellant indulges in offering drinks and after serving drinks, he gets the documents executed. Similar is the statement of Bant Singh DW5. The testimony of Sucha Singh and that of Sarja Singh has gone unrebutted by the plaintiff/respondent and once it is found that the plaintiff/appellant deals in the profession of money lending, the onus proving that he advanced an amount of Rs.15,050/- to the respondent was on him and he was required to prove the consideration. Mere presence of signatures of the respondent on the pronote and the receipt in the peculiar circumstances of this case does not prove that the money was so advanced.” 7. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff could not point out any inconformity and perversity in the finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below. 8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that giving loan to few known people does not make the plaintiff a money lender. In my humble opinion, in view of the clear finding of fact recorded that payment of Rs.15,050/- by the plaintiff to the defendant under pronote is not proved, the issue as to whether plaintiff is a money lender or not, requires no consideration. Finding that payment of Rs.15,050/- by the plaintiff to the defendant, under pronote is not proved is well supported by the evidence available on record. RSA No.2551 of 1987 (O&M) 5 9. Both the Courts below have recorded finding of fact that it is well proved on the record that plaintiff had advanced loan of Rs.600/- to one Rajinder Singh, Rs.2712/- to Norata Singh, again Rs.1500/- to Norata Singh, Rs.1900 to Karam Singh, again Rs.1700/- to Rajinder Singh and meanwhile to other and as per the entries in the register, Rs.6000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.4950/-, Rs.1560/- and again Rs.20,000/- to Gurbachan Singh on different dates @ Rs.2% per month and Rs.6000/- on interest to Nasib Singh. In view of the various transactions of loan, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality and error in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff is a money lender. Both the Courts below were right in observing that without a valid license as required under Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938, suit is not maintainable. 10. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court until and unless menifest error of law is pointed out giving rise to any substantial question of law. 11. In my humble opinion, no substantial question of law arises and case stands decided by clear finding of fact. Hence the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) 3.3.2010 JUDGE ashish